Category Archives: Blog

Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network Project Proposal

  1. 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;

The outputs and products of this project are twofold:  1) it will provide a forum for individuals dealing with the courts to control their own access to information by setting up an alternative docketing system to bring publicity to their own cases in a form and manner outside of the control of the lawyers and the courts, and 2) it will establish an alternative media outlet focused specifically on the workings of the third branch of government.

There is no greater need in the modern American political and legal climate than for serious judicial reform, which includes reforms in the very nature of the practice of law, as well as the way that the courts are covered in the media.  The greatest obstacle that is faced in the modern political world is the courts, which, while a co-equal third branch of government, are largely run completely in secret.  The experiential background of this proposal comes from a civil rights practitioner in the Pennsylvania state and federal courts, and the real life experience of representing disenfranchised individuals who have tried to pursue their civil rights claims through the courts.

Currently, and for the past four years, I have been working on an organization I have developed, with the intention of turning it into a credible national civil rights organization, known as the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network.  The major themes of the effort are found at  There have been thousands of individuals with whom I have been in contact through the network from all over the country who have had experiences with the courts that have brought them to me.  I continue to work with these people, and have received wide appreciation for my insights into the courts and insights into the difficulties with gaining access to justice.

When an individual experiences the interference with his or her civil rights, i.e., those “inherent, inalienable rights endowed by our creator,” there is a visceral reaction that strikes at the core of their humanity, and is very difficult, and almost impossible, to explain to others who have not shared such an experience.  These individuals come to the legal system feeling broken and abused, and have lost trust in their employers, police, and governments, and have been damaged and injured economically, often facing the very survival of their families, which they risked to do the right thing.

The courage that it takes to be a whistleblower or to stand up to official oppression or abuse is immense.  All-too often, when these injured and abused, courageous people come to the courts with the hope that they finally are going to get the vindication they deserve, they only end up suffering the same abuses, and face the same losses all over again, and walk away feeling doubly damaged and inured with all hope lost.  This is what motivated me to create the Pennsylvania Civil rights Law Network.

One of the key problems that I have noted, both as an active practitioner, and since, is the control that lawyers have over access to justice and how, despite the fact that there are many conscientious lawyers representing individuals across the country, lawyers are an oppressed group of professionals, and those who speak out against the system become targets for the disciplinary enforcement arms of these courts.  While in the past, attorneys performed valuable roles in policing the courts and judges, through the process of acculturation, driven largely by their selfish desires to maximize profits, and protect business interests, attorneys have failed to effectively ensure their clients fair access to justice.

The nature of the practice of law itself has caused the deterioration in the quality of fair and equal access to justice.  Lawyers are more concerned with maintaining their social status, and their ability to get “results” by gaining the favor of judges and other lawyers that the needs of the client are no longer their primary focus.  This may work in many cases, as in the case where a truly guilty client needs a favorable plea, or when a few more dollars are needed in a personal injury settlement, but it does not work when vindication of the core civil rights of an individual are involved, and it does not work when those lawyers need an advocate to fight against that very system.  While it is not this way in every case and with every lawyer, I have been around enough courts, and enough individuals who have come to me after years of abuse and mistreatment by other lawyers, who they have paid many thousands of dollars to, to know that there is a real problem with the quality of representation that people seeking justice get.

The fact is that the control that lawyers and bar associations have over the practice of law is a de facto monopoly that has become a good old boys club, and has enacted rules and practices to make lawyers a necessity, when, in reality, they are not.  Our courtrooms need to be opened up to private litigants, who are the most competent persons to handle their own legal problems, with the assistance of counsel and friends, particularly when it is their very lives and futures on the line, and their core human rights that have been violated.  They are not having their most basic rights adequately protected in the current climate.  Lawyers can be very competent, skilled, and effective, but they can be very unskilled and inept as well, and there is no reason that they need to have an exclusive monopoly on the practice of law.

Judges are almost universally former lawyers, who have come up through the system and been elected or appointed to their positions based upon the affinity of their fellow lawyers, who are the primary contributors to campaigns and supporters of their bids for judgeships.  As a result, the courtrooms have become bastions built up to protect and preserve the institution of the practice of law, and cases and litigants who present a threat to these collegial institutions are treated with hostility.  The very nature of the civil rights practice goes against these institutions, and involves the reality of government being corrupt and elected official and others in who we place our trust as American citizens doing bad things, and present threats to these very institutions.

Lawyers are products of these institutions, and, myself included, have a very hard time accepting that abusive and dishonest public servants exist in our world to the extent they do, and, when the abusiveness and dishonesty occurs in the courts themselves, which is our a co-equal third branch of government, the ability to accept and expose its existence is compounded.

This is due to a confluence of the following factors:  1) lawyers’ need to protect their own standing and financial status, 2) the subconscious need for lawyers to believe they are working in an honorable profession, and 3) the fact that the judges whose conduct has fallen short are the ones who have control over lawyers’ professional lives.  As a result, blind eyes are turned to obvious mistreatment, and psychological defenses are built up to not allow the conduct to be seen or accepted, and the individual litigants who experience it are ostracized and discounted, and justice in American courtrooms suffers greatly.

Over the past four years, in particular, I have witnessed the utter lack of access to courts that individual citizens have as what are called “pro se” litigants, i.e., individuals who choose to attempt to access the courts on their own, without high-priced lawyers who are acculturated products of the system, in order to gain justice in their own cases.  I have worked with numerous such people, courageous and talented people, and it is nothing short of tragic to see and hear about the abject abuses they have suffered through the courts, and the lawyers and judges who run them.

Lawyers and judges control the litigation process through obfuscation and legal chicanery, and the courts themselves conduct almost all of their functions in private, from deliberations to rule making, and, pertinent to this proposal, the media give the courts a free pass in many ways.  While many high profile cases of public importance get wide coverage, and decisions get discussed and debated, there is a real failure of the media in performing the proper policing function of the courts.

The foregoing is the basis for the first aspect of my proposal – a legal private docketing system where individuals can post their own documents in their own cases, and invite readers to view the specific aspects of their cases that reveal the true victimization they have suffered.

While modern courts boast of the access that the average citizen has or may have to their decisions by posting them in user friendly online dockets (for which excessive fees ore often charged), the court opinions that people read often do not resemble the actual facts of their cases; yet the public accepts what the courts say as a true representation of the facts of their cases, and people who get mistreated by the courts, or whose case is compromised by their lawyers, get a third victimization when they have to deal with the shame and humiliation for life of having not received the vindication to which they were entitled.  I have seen it many times.

The private docketing system will allow them to highlight the documents and arguments that they have made that have been discounted and neglected by the courts, and, through the networking aspect of the Civil Rights Law Network, to find other people who have had cases like theirs, and exchange ideas and even documents, so as to reduce the need to rely on lawyers to make the arguments they wish to make.  This will also involve use of the PCRLN youtube channel for publication of testimonial videos.

The second aspect of this proposal relates to an equally important part of the problem regarding access to justice – the failure of the media to provide adequate coverage of the courts in civil rights cases.  These cases often involve public corruption at high levels of state government, or large institutions, which, because of their size and reach, affect cultural climates all across the country, and the mistreatment that litigants receive in the courts often become part of the problem; yet, for institutional reasons, these cases never receive the full coverage in the mainstream press that they deserve.

It cannot be stressed enough how much control that the courts, and particularly the federal courts, have over setting cultural climates and allowing chrony politics to persist.  Almost every civil rights case of varying natures, involves one or more lying witnesses, without which the truth and justice of the cases would be clear; yet, due to political concerns and other agendas, they receive protection by the courts.  In the federal courts in Pennsylvania, there is a real reluctance of the courts to pierce these corrupt institutions, and the judges far-too-often act to protect their political friends and institutions, often lawyers protecting lawyers at all levels by turning a blind eye, over and over, to what are nothing short of perjurers.  One strong rebuke by a federal court could cause a sea change in these corrupt institutions, which, in itself, could serve an effective docket control purpose.

The average American citizen knows very little about the courts, and the vast majority of them never have any dealings with the courts.  What we all know about the courts, i.e., that they are “the best system of justice in the world,” as we learned in our formative years, becomes the lens through which the majority of people view the legal system, and there is a real, and very natural, prejudice, in favor of the system, i.e., people tend to accept what judges say as true and valid, and distrust and view with skepticism any real and valid criticism of the system.  An honest and aggressive media is essential to educating the public that our system does not always provide the quality of justice that we are lead to believe it does.

It is difficult enough for the average reporter who gets a story concerning a case involving issues of public corruption to understand and address the full import of the issues in these cases from a legal standpoint, and these difficulties are magnified when, as is often the case, there are suggestions of misconduct of the courts that all-too-often contribute to the injustice.  It is at this point that the control of the lawyers and the courts presents the obstacle to justice.

The editors who get these stories take them to the lawyers, and the lawyers’ licenses are controlled by the courts, and the newspapers often have legal problems of their own, and they, like most Americans, want to have politically friendly courts, and, as a result, these sensitive stories get scuttled.  These cases often only get media coverage if or when they are thrown out by the courts, in which case the only thing that gets reported is what the judges write in their sanitized opinions based upon their often jaded views of the cases, and the average John Q. Citizen either accepts these opinions as the only truth behind the story, or does not know enough about the workings of the courts to understand that what they read from the courts very often tells very little about the real case that has just been decided, and this, then, becomes the narrative of civil rights in the courts.

What has happened as a result of this dual failing – the lawyers failing to perform their policing function, and the media failing to perform its functions of ensuring openness, is that the courts themselves control the perceptions of their functions.

What is needed, and is already reflected in the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network site, and which will be further developed through the Pennsylvania Gazette, is an effective media outlet that has the courage, commitment, and understanding, to address these civil rights, and other court-related issues, with the depth and insights offered herein.  The Pennsylvania Gazette will be a news agency devoted to coverage of the third branch of our government.

2.  An explanation of how the Project builds on existing efforts or charts new terrain.

While there is starting to be a proliferation of websites from largely disgruntled litigants, there do not appear to be many, or any, with the unique focus, insight, and depth of coverage of the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network, as developed by this writer.  That effort centered largely on and around the civil rights practice of attorneys Don Bailey, and how he became a political target and victim due to his courage in both representing disenfranchised American citizens, and, quintessentially, the “little man” in their courageous battles against their governments and employers who violate their individual civil rights.

The site will be used as the platform from which our effort will be launched.  There is nothing that exists in our country that offers such a comprehensive and aggressive challenge to the legal institutions, including the monopoly that lawyers have on justice in America, and presents a credible alternative to, and check on, the way justice is administered.  It is my firm belief that in the years to come, the subject of this proposal could not just equalize access to justice, but could revolutionize the effectiveness and quality of its administration.

  1. A description of the Project’s expected impact and how you might measure it;

The guiding principle behind this project is that “sunlight is the greatest disinfectant” in the sense that, knowing what this writer knows about lawyers and the courts, the greatest impact that will be had in opening up access to justice for all is to shed light on the real nature of the problems, to put the people back on a par with the courts.  I intend to build into the docketing system specific statistics on handling pro se litigant cases, and measuring the success in civil rights litigation.  The courts do keep fairly detailed statistics on caseloads and types of cases (interestingly, lawyers in civil rights cases receive about 80% of the sanctions administered by federal courts), and these can be modified to provide specific measures of success and advancement in civil rights cases.

  1. A detailed account of how you will achieve your goals, including a communications and/or outreach strategy. Please describe the specific audiences you hope to reach, your reasons for focusing on them, and how you intend to influence them;

The outreach has been effectuated as much as possible under all the present circumstances.  There have been thousands of unique visitors to my site, with as many as 12000 views in some months.  I have a facebook page and twitter for the PCRLN, and many persons in the network who have volunteered some of their time and energies in helping me.  I have the domain for, and will use that to expand the network to each state by adding, for example a .ohio or .texas, etc. to the platform.  The Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network will be used as the template.  We will reach disadvantaged litigants, and the lawyers and courts, who will see and know that the people are taking control over their own access to the courts.

I also am a graduate of the Widener University School of Law in Harrisburg, and have worked with some students there as legal interns, largely on a volunteer basis, though it is difficult to find the best help available without being able to pay them.  My hope and desire, however, which I will continue to work toward, whether or not through the foundation, is to staff the PCRLN with law students and even lawyers who will work individually with litigants in helping with their cases.

  1. The reasons you are especially suited to carry out this Project;

I believe that my website and my videos speak for themselves in terms of the insights that I have into these issues, and that I am uniquely qualified, through experience, to deal with these issues.  I have been involved with many dozens of federal civil rights lawsuits representing clients across all socioeconomic strata, and, in every case, I have been out-resourced exponentially.  There are, of course, other attorneys across the country who have handled cases like I have handled, but what qualifies me uniquely is my commitment to the humanity of my clients and others with whom I deal.  I care about people individually, and have made my career out of service to the person, and not service to the dollar.  I have never turned a client away who needed help because they have not had money because I believe that the true commitment to justice requires selflessness.

  1. A description of how you expect the Project to fit into your career trajectory and future work;

This project, as should be clear from all of the foregoing, is my life, and I will accomplish what I am working on, and be a force for change in the civil rights landscape for years to come.

  1. A Project timeline;

One year would be sufficient to complete this project, and have it set up according to this proposal, with all reporting and a long-term relationship with others established.  I have gotten an extraordinary amount of work done, and established network connections over the past four years, and the past year, in particular.  There are many, many talented and resourceful people outside of the traditional legal system who are fully capable of understanding the legal system, and the travails of what it takes to correct and change it.

  1. An explanation of how you might engage with other projects, and how these interactions could add value both to these other projects and to your Project;

As I have said to many over the past four years, no matter what your issue is, be it race issues, green agenda issues, lgbt issues, banking issues, HOA issues, or any other issue, they all depend on a fair court in the end.  Whether or not any individual dealing with any of these issues ever ends up in a court, they all depend on a fair court.  I have seen from other projects that there is a central focus on the access to justice, and this proposal, and the understanding it brings, will be of tremendous benefit to many of the other projects I have reviewed.

9.  Estimated Fellowship Expenses in USD;

I estimate the expenses of building and marinating the website and databases, which includes the fees for the administrator and basic research, to be $15,000-$20,000 for one year.

10.  Any other relevant information.

The failings that have been generally discussed in this proposal are, in this writer’s view, the core reasons that our society does not progress in the area of civil rights and public corruption, and this proposal presents an innovative and unconventional approach to the most basic of open society challenges – one dealing with the openness of access to justice.

Ostrowski and Bailey discipline expose a critical problem with the system of justice – the suppression of lawyers’ free speech rights

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 things I had written – he opposed my reinstatement on what I have discussed on, and linked to, this site.  See PCRLN/Ostrowski videos and this site generally.

I have engaged in political speech, i.e., words critical of the third branch of our government, and, as the briefs below clearly reveal, Mr, Gilroy will only be able to oppose my reinstatement on the mere fact alone that I have written and spoken these words.  Every word I have written and uttered has been done so in good faith, and believing them all to be true.  Further, I submit that every statement of fact I have made is demonstrably true, and that every inference is eminently reasonable.

My First Amendment rights are being trampled because I am (or was or will be) a lawyer who is being critical of the courts.  The implications of that are grave for every person seeking access to a court expecting it to be fair and honest.

Ostrowski Hearing Brief (author – Ostrowski)     Ostrowski Hearing Brief (author – Bailey)

Don Bailey has been suspended by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for 5 years, a total travesty that was only made possible through catastrophic deprivations of his due process rights, and the coverage of his disciplinary proceedings through this site should be studied and understood by anyone seriously interested in real judicial reform.  See the Bailey due process violations/PCRLN coverage article.  Don has been victimized because he did as a lawyer what I have done as a non-lawyer.  Don is a hero, and his commitment and accomplishments should be celebrated, and will be someday, and we will continue to cover the progress of his case, as there surely is much more to be heard from Don.

In the brief that Don wrote on my behalf, and with my immense gratitude, he cited the words of our own United States Supreme Court in a landmark case called New York Times v. Sullivan, words that are very clear and simple for any American to understand:

The general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions. The constitutional safeguard, we have said, was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.  The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system.  *  *  *   Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law—the argument of force in its worst form. 

Don succinctly summarized the grave problems that these disciplinary proceedings have revealed as follows:

There is no greater threat to the security, stability, and political health of the United States of America and of our courts than the oppressive effect of judicial control of attorney licensure and discipline which is focused on suppressing, punishing, and deterring criticism from lawyers.   …….  If Ostrowski had criticized the mob, he would never be challenged on those grounds. If he rudely and discourteously attacked the government of China he would be okay . If he engaged in criticisms of the legislature and of the President, not a word would be said to him. But while he is not even practicing law, if he expresses a critical opinion about public officials who happen to be judges, then he is denied the right to practice in our courts. The courts of the United States of America do not belong to our judges, they belong to the people. Judges have no more individual rights than other American citizens and should not be privileged such that an attorney is at risk for his right and opportunity to earn a living because according to the opinion of a jurist he has cast critical light upon the judiciary. The ultimate irony is that the very institution charged with the protection of individual rights in our country is clearly the most destructive of those ends. An oppressed attorney class does not serve the “public interest”. This court should assume the role of constructively confronting these deficiencies and free Mr. Ostrowski from the restraints he is suffering.

From my standpoint, in the brief that I wrote, I summarized my position on the application of this principle in my case as follows:

Petitioner understands that, perhaps, some of the hyperbole and/or rhetoric he used in his videos and other materials are not the most comfortable or convenient things for this Court to hear about the other judges of this Court, and his views of the system of justice, and the Middle District Courts, and no one is sorrier than Petitioner for having said, and felt the need to say, these things, but, again, they are all true and/or were made in good faith and with a reasonable belief of their truthfulness.  Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor recently pointed out that Judges are fair game and must be open to criticism.  The complement to criticism, of course, is to acknowledge and act on the criticisms in some open and honest form or fashion.  All of this began with honest criticisms of members of the judiciary, mostly in the Middle District, and none of it was ever addressed.  When Petitioner made these criticisms as a lawyer, they were not addressed, when he directed correspondence to the court as a non-lawyer, they were not addressed, and the failure and refusal to address honest and good faith criticism naturally only leaves one to assume that those criticisms are accurate and true.  This is why they continued to be made, and even had taken on a more aggressive, and less objectively respectful, character, but none of it changes the fact that the Petitioner reasonably believed and believes the truthfulness of every word he has ever uttered, and all were made in good faith.  For these reasons, there is no proper basis upon which to deny Petitioner reinstatement to the roll of attorneys in this Court. Petitioner concludes, however, by expressly and sincerely apologizing for any feelings of animosity and disrespect his comments engendered.  There is not one word that Petitioner has uttered about any judge or practitioner that will create any lasting problems respecting the authority of even those as to whom the comments have been directed, and there is now, and never has been, any agenda of the Petitioner to do anything other than to appear before the Courts of the United States of America and to represent persons who have been hurt and harmed, and are in need of representation by competent legal counsel, and to practice his profession, and make his living in doing so. This Court pointed out during the August 27, 2013 hearing, it was up to Petitioner to persuade the Court that he was fit to return to the active roll of attorneys in the Middle District.  Petitioner submits that has been done.

I hope people have the time and opportunity to read and understand the things that are discussed here and throughout this site – there are implications to all of it on your personal lives that may not be understood until it is too late for you to not be victimized by them.

Thank you.

Ostrowski discipline update/PCRLN activities at issue in right to practice law

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.

My readmission was opposed by the assigned disciplinary counsel, Hubert Gilroy, who was appointed by Chief Middle District Judge Yvette Kane, on the grounds that things that I have said in the videos that I have posted here, and correspondence I sent, and things I have posted on the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network site, disqualify me from practice because they demonstrate a lack of regard for the authority of the courts.  This, of course, is a false proposition, because I have the utmost regard for the role of the courts in regulating the affairs of men, and every word I have written and spoken has been communicated with the intention of improving the quality of, and access to, justice for every American.   What I have said is true, and, at the very least, has been said with a reasonable belief in its truthfulness, and the evidence to support all of it is right here on this site.

The only evidence presented by Mr. Gilroy was my words – he presented no witnesses to contradict anything I have ever said.  The issue that the Judge is going to need to decide is whether the mere fact alone that I said these words, all said on this site, and in correspondence sent to Judges, Senators, and even the President, some of which were delivered by me personally to the offices of Senators Casey and Toomey on Capitol Hill, is reason in and of itself to refuse to return me to the roll of attorneys in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Judge Brann will have to decide these legal issues, which will be part of the post-hearing briefing, and, should I not be readmitted, a clear issue will be presented for review by higher courts, including the Unites States Supreme Court, if necessary, as to whether attorneys have the same First Amendment rights as other Americans, and, if not, what that means to the practice of law, and access to justice in America.

Mr. Gilroy was also appointed by Judge Kane to be a special investigator in the federal aspect of the disciplinary proceeding against Don Bailey, and a letter I sent to him on January 24, 2011, and copied to all of the other Judges in the Middle District, and to others, including Senators Casey and Toomey, while I was suspended, was presented as evidence.  All of the remaining evidence opposing my reinstatement were statements and writings by me subsequent to that letter.

Judge Brann is a new federal judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and took his seat on the bench just this year.  Many of the comments that I have made were made about his colleagues in the Middle District in Harrisburg – Judges Kane, Conner, and Jones – in relation to the Don Bailey disciplinary proceedings.  I understand the realities of my situation as well as anyone, but, again, know that nothing that I have said will keep me from appearing before any of these judges, and treating them with the decorum, respect, and dignity that they, and the system of justice derived from the authority of men, deserve, and as I have always conducted myself.  All of this was made clear to Judge Brann, and the matter is turned over to his discretion.

Regardless of the outcome, the efforts of the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network will continue, and I will provide updates soon on ventures that we are continuing to work on.  Equal access to justice under the law is our organizing principle, and, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on August 28, 1963, “we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Thank you.

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.

PCRLN, Borough of Centralia, and past and current residents petition Attorney General Kathleen Kane for investigation of fraudulent mine fires

PCRLN, Borough of Centralia, and Past and Current Residents Petition Attorney General Kathleen Kane for Investigation of Fraudulent Mine Fires

The Borough of Centralia, Pennsylvania, along with some of its past and current remaining residents, and the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network have filed a formal petition to Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane to conduct a formal investigation into allegations of fraud and public corruption regarding the mine fires that have allegedly burned beneath the Borough of Centralia for decades, but which are, in reality, a total sham and fraud, involving Pennsylvania politicians and lawyers over decades.

It is believed, and has been alleged, that the real objective has been to gain access to a coal vein, known as the “mammoth” vein, which contains billions of dollars worth of some of the purest anthracite coal in the world.  Scientists who have studied the area know that the fires are not, and never were, the threat that they were represented to be, but the courts, including the federal courts in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, have avoided efforts to address these obvious issues.

Recent federal court appointee, Judge Matthew Brann, who was a career private practice lawyer in rural Pennsylvania, with unknown experience dealing with the federal courts and constitutional issues, has recently dismissed substantial portions of the federal case filed by the Borough of Centralia.  Judge Brann has not responded to our request for an interview and comment.

The lawsuit filed by the Borough and several of its residents was filed as a verified pleading, containing detailed factual allegations, and was accompanied by a motion for injunctive relief with hundreds of pages of supporting documents.  Those documents can be viewed here:

Centralia Amended Complaint

Motion Injunction

Exhibits Inj 1-16

The Petition to Attorney General Kane provides as follows:


            We, the undersigned Petitioners, are the Borough of Centralia, Pennsylvania, its duly established Board of Supervisors, current and past residents of the Borough, The Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network, and concerned citizens from across Pennsylvania, in accordance with the right of petition, recognized as inherent and inviolate, pursuant to Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 20, and Article 1, Section 25, and petition the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Kathleen Kane, to exercise all right and appropriate powers to investigate, prosecute, enforce, and/or litigate, in any and all respects, any and all of the allegations and claims made in connection with the Centralia Mine Fires, and Petitioners’ allegations of fraud and public corruption that have been perpetuated since at least in or around the 1980s, and through the present.

Petitioners, some few of them, including the Borough, have filed a federal civil rights action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, No. 10-CV-2222.  This federal proceeding has been in an extended hiatus, and is no impediment to the Attorney General acting in furtherance of her statutory duties.  The Petitioner/Plaintiffs in that matter have filed a verified Amended Complaint, and a verified Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, with 28 Exhibits, consisting of several hundred pages.  They are appended to this petition, and made a part hereof.  Those claims are also generally set forth on the Courts of the Commonwealth, through, primarily, Commonwealth Court, No. 150 MDA 2010, in which a final order has been entered, and which specifically recognized that no claims have ever been made and/or litigated by and/or against the Borough of Centralia.  The legal issues as to the rest are inapt to the duties of the Attorney General.

Petitioners submit that the evidence and attachments justify, indeed, warrant, in the public interest of the citizens of this Commonwealth, the exercise of all powers of the Office of Attorney General, pursuant to Pennsylvania Constitution Article 4, Section 4, and the Commonwealth Attorney’s Act, 71 P.S. § 732-210, et seq..

To wit:

1.         Petitioners hereby petition the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to convene a multi-county investigating grand jury, pursuant to the powers vested in the Office by 71 P.S. § 732-207, and 42 Pa. C.S. § 4544, into allegations of public corruption, within the scope and authority of 71 P.S. § 732-505(a)(1), in connection with the allegations of public corruption, as to which a good faith basis has been made, as articulated and supported in the documents appended hereto.

2.         Petitioners submit that the allegations as reflected in these petitioning documents support investigation into all Governors and Attorneys General going back, at least, to the first administration of deceased Governor Robert P. Casey, and each gubernatorial and Attorney General administration since.  The allegations would also include certain private individuals and entities alleged to have participated in a public corruption conspiracy with the public officials, above-referenced.   These would include the Law Firm of Rosenn, Jenkins and Greenwald, Attorney Gary Taroli, Attorney Jack Zelinka, Tom Linott, the Blaschak Coal Company, Jack Carling, and others to be determined through the investigation.

3.         Among the most salient of those facts, which have never been presented in any court, and which compel further investigation, are the following:

  • Beginning in or around 1997, Blaschak Coal Company acquired over 55 acres of surface area within the Borough.
  • In 2002, a landowner in the Borough of Centralia, John Koschoff, developed property in the Borough with the knowledge of the condemnors.  A declaration of taking was only filed in July, 2010 after petitioners raised the issue in these proceedings.
  • In or around 2004, Blaschak built a warehouse facility in the condemned zone, which is used to store mining equipment.
  • In 2006, a declaration of taking with respect to one landowner in the condemned area, Robert Nechtel, was relinquished, and his property returned to him in fee simple.  Respondents have refused the same request with respect to petitioners.
  • In or around 2010-11, the respondent granted two property owners, one of who is petitioner Carl Womer, life estates.  Respondent has refused the same request with respect to petitioners.
  • At times up through and including 2009, active mining operations were conducted, with the knowledge of the condemnor, in violation of state law, in the condemned area.
  • Core temperatures and ambient ground temperatures have normalized.

The supporting evidence for these contentions is all in the record.  On the basis of these documents, petitioners demand further criminal investigation.

4.         Petitioners respect, appreciate, and understand the gravity of the demands being placed upon this Office, and its current occupant, not only because of the gravity and extent of the scope of the allegations, which would take the most extraordinary courage to confront in general, but particularly given the recent election to this office by the Honorable Kathleen Kane, who is from the region, and likely, and understandably, familiar with many of the individuals into whom investigation is being requested.  Petitioners emphatically do not suggest any wrongdoing or impropriety of any nature by this Attorney General.  Nevertheless, Petitioners submit that, due to the inherent appearance of conflict, a special investigator be appointed to conduct the grand jury investigation pursuant to the authority vested by 73 P.S. § 732-205(d), upon appropriate terms and conditions.  The special prosecutor should be such as to meet the requirement for qualification for the Office of Attorney General, and have experience in litigation in matters of public corruption.  Petitioners request that appointment of a special prosecutor be agreed upon by the Attorney General, Mr. Bailey, on behalf of the Petitioners and Andrew J. Ostrowski on behalf of the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network.

We, the undersigned, do hereby support and endorse all of the terms and conditions of the foregoing Petition to Attorney General Kathleen Kane to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute the allegations of fraud and public corruption in connection with the Centralia Mine Fire and related proceedings.


/s/ Borough of Centralia, PCRLN, and residents

The actual, signed, petition can be viewed here:

Petition to Kane

We will be preparing and circulating an online petition, and ask all who are so inclined, to review the evidence, and study it for yourself, and to join us in this effort.  Attorney General Kane has recently appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the conduct of Governor Corbett in connection with the Penn State/Sandusky scandal, and this matter is every bit as important to the public integrity of the government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and a proper investigation should be conducted.

Please support our efforts.

Thank you.

Call goes out to OCCUPY FOR JUSTICE

A Call goes out to OCCUPY FOR JUSTICE

While the Occupy movement was being vilified and made fun of by the popular press and politicians, to do what they are so effective at doing – controlling public opinion, I was studying the movement.  Watching the people pour into the streets felt like watching the Berlin Wall come down all over again – giving $700 billion to bankers making tens of millions to “bail them out,” when people are having property taken without hearings, can’t find jobs, are asked to tighten their fiscal belts, and listen to diatribe about “economic collapse” and “austerity,” very justifiably tweaks the mind and conscience.  99% was probably a fair representation of those so tweaked.

The problem with the movement was, once out in the streets, there was no organizing principle that sustained it.  It was easy to see, and it is why it was so easily suppressed by the grander institutions of our 21st century America, beholden only to, and at the service of, the almighty dollar.

What brought people out into the streets was a cry for justice, and the occupy movement’s central organizing principle always was justice.  This is a call to OCCUPY FOR JUSTICE, and to make all of your appearances, protests, encampments, and all else in the halls of American justice, the greatest administers of injustice of all, our courts.

It’s just time to tip the tables of some money-changers.  That’s what you were trying to do when you first poured out into the streets two short (or long) years ago.  The courts are the enforcement arm of the money changers.

Ostrowski Settlement Demand and Manifesto for Liberty and Justice

The above is a “settlement demand” I have made, and am sending to the Vatican, the President, my Pennsylvania Senators, the United States Supreme Court and Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices, a lawyer from Penn State, who I know knows damn well what Jerry Sandusky was doing over 10 years ago, and another lawyer, Pamela Collis, in connection with a related claim.  The lawsuit being addressed is one conceived and developed by me, over time, with every next step being made by the powers-that-be not doing what was right on the last one.  It is a very honest effort, and as well-intended and meritorious as any, and could, depending on how my demand is responded to, be a class action lawsuit by the citizens of the United States of America against its government, through all of the individuals of which it is comprised.  It is called a “manifesto for liberty and justice,” because this is what it is as I see the world, based upon my 20 years of experience in representing injured American citizens in their dealings with the courts, and in walking with them through the abuses and disruptions they feel from having their “God-given” rights, as we all call them, taken away by their employers, governments, and others.

I do not have a good-faith basis to include a claim against the President at this point because there are certain legal standards that must be met, and, while it is likely that they are or could be met, it is a matter of the utmost seriousness to sue the President, and I have always been fairly conservative when it comes to making allegations in lawsuits, probably not as conservative as Don Bailey, though.  If these people ever saw the caution and care with which Don handles people who come to him before taking them into court, you would know, instantly, that there is a vast mis-information campaign that has slandered him immensely, and hurt many dozen of his clients just as badly.  Regardless, this site has laid out in significant detail how it is the Courts, and the chronyist, and even more sinister control of them, which is deliberate, that are the obstacle to liberty and justice that we all feel inside.  I would find it hard to believe that Scranton’s own Joe Biden does not know about Centralia.

Here is how the Occupy for Justice should work – organize in and around your courthouses, they are centrally located, and it is where most of the day-to-day business that affects your lives is done.  Go into courtrooms and watch proceedings – they are air-conditioned in the summer and heated in the winter.  The benches are there for you.  They often have lawns outside, and are pretty nice places.  Most have cafeterias.  When you are in the courtrooms, be quiet, and orderly.  Go into court clerk’s offices, and recorder’s offices, and ask to see documents about cases.  Ask nicely.  These places are staffed by American citizens like yourselves, and they need to be treated with the same respect that you do.  Get court schedules and calendars and post them on your sites.  Go watch what lawyers and judges do, and see for yourselves if justice is being administered fairly.  Your attendance there will do much to improve the chances.

When you are there, at the courthouses, organize under the principle of “equal justice under the law,” and hang all of your corporate greed, political corruption, and social justice banners under that principle.  The fact is, that, whatever your issue is – be it the banking industry, corporate greed, a green agenda, anti-fracking, or any of the myriad of issues I witnessed at my attendance of the Occupy functions, they all depend, and will depend, at some point, on a fair and honest court.  It is justice we are all after, and, whether or not you do actually end up in court one day, it is the lack of discipline that corrupt courts and chrony politics create that we are feeling.  If they try to stop you, sue them for violations of your First Amendment rights.

The first place to organize should be the Pennsylvania Judicial Center on Commonwealth Avenue in Harrisburg.  Go watch that video they show on the Masonic eye that stares at you when you enter and exit the building.  Go try to find a courtroom on your own, and feel welcomed to do so.  Go read the signs they have up, and see if you can make sense of them, and try to tell what office does what, and where to file documents for the three Pennsylvania appellate courts, and other “admin” offices, or where you can find a Judge, and, most importantly, ask yourself why it looks more like a fortress, and not a courthouse, and ask what in the world are they trying to keep from getting in that place.

Research the “Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts,” and see the extent of the “admin” control it has, and how it is so secretive, and how controlled it is.  Research Article 5, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and why it was amended in 1968, and what was going on that they wanted to control.  I will be getting into all of these issues in my case, and will reserve getting into all of the evidence of what this all will reveal until in litigation, unless settled sooner.

Our systems of government have failed us – Don Bailey is evidence of what happens when you try to petition your government honestly for a redress of your grievances on the most important of issues through the courts; and we have no better friend in the popular media.  Recall, folks, that we just had a presidential election that cost billions of dollars, as you learned from our media; yet, though I haven’t looked at the numbers or done the math, it was the media who received the biggest boon, and the proliferation of news channels, and politico personalities, shows it – everyone has a show and all the politicians are on them.  While this writer views MSNBC as something of a savior in recent years, it, too, is beholden to the multi-billion dollar political machines that pay their salaries.  As long as Ed Rendell is their go-to pol, there’s not much chance of our Pennsylvania issues being fairly addressed.  Its message is getting more suspiciously steered.  What goes on in all these board rooms, and above, needs to be examined, however.  The point is that there is no access there, either – look at what they did to the Occupy movement last year – they have every bit the same interest in shutting up 99% of Americans that the others do – money, and it very much is the root of all evil.

They are all the beneficiaries of the Citizen’s United decision, a repugnant decision, recognizing rights in a fiction created by man designed to insulate people from their free choices on a par with what we, as Americans, indeed, as sovereign individuals, have divined, based on the collective, combined experience of all of humanity over millennia, as those rights symbolizing man’s bond with his or her creator alone.  They get all the tax benefits and loopholes, and belittle people who don’t swallow the pablum that they are being fed that this “free market system” is ordained by God as some Eleventh Commandment or moral foundation of civilized society – to be sure, this writer endorses it as an economic policy, but “greed” is not “good.”  It is, however, making what one of the greatest social commentators of our time, Eminem, called a “hypocrisy of democracy.”

This “Reagan revolution” that we hear about needs to be over, and this chapter of American history closed.  It is unsustainable anymore.  It was all contrived messaging anyway.  Jimmy Carter, in one of his later presidential addresses, began to warn America, as a true moral and social, not religious, leader, with a finger uniquely on its pulse, would, of the coming dangers of this materialistic society that began to take hold in the 60s and 70s.  America elected Ronald Reagan, and, a mere 30 years later, our economy reached the point of near collapse, bankers making millions are receiving billions of the tax dollars earned off the blood, sweat, and tears of the other 99%, banks and corporations are spending billions to get candidates elected, the media are self-professed “opinion-makers,” children are being slaughtered in our schools and in our streets, Dick Cheney and his first puppet, George W. Bush, contrived at least one war, cut their corporate chronies tax breaks, and bailed them out for taking people’s lives, houses, and savings, and his second puppet, nothing but a stuffed suit by any measure (stuffed with cash, of course), gave quite a scare, running on the “greed is good” platform, and there are more in line.  The daily news discourse involves, cliffs, and austerity, and sequestration, and terror, and poverty – politicians used to talk of eliminating these things, now we are told to expect them.  Among all of this, the Second Amendment has taken the lead on the news shows, and the political agenda, and Dick Cheney’s Haliburton is building internment camps on American soil, or so I’m told.

It is an intellectual and, yes, moral struggle we are involved in, but no one is paying attention, and the distraction of the masses is deliberate, or, at least, a grave consequence of the cultural decisions we have made.  Unless all peaceful avenues are exhausted, it will, very soon, if they haven’t gotten your guns before then, turn to that as a last resort – the signs are everywhere.  It is time to Occupy for Justice.

I will be proceeding with my lawsuit, and I will work with any and every American citizen who wants to join it.  We could ask for the $700 billion back, if it takes that shape, and for all of the properties, possessions, and lives that have been lost because of this absolute mess that has been made of our country.  I could probably use some help organizing it, but the legal issues are really not all that complicated – our Constitutional rights are being violated.  I really don’t think that most lawyers even get it, and if we can get Don Bailey to help us, we could really do something to change this country.

I hope I get a response to my letter, but, whatever that response, there are going to have to be some more enduring approaches to these problems we seem incapable of correcting.  I am judge-shopping, and will file this lawsuit in any state or federal court where there is a Judge with the courage to stand up and do the job they took an oath and get paid to do.  I’ll do some kind of nomination thing on this site.  The only hurry in re-filing the suit is the urgency any of you feel.  I have plenty of time.

This is a big statement and made in bold terms, but it is very serious.  I’m calling for a revolution – if it needs a name, call it the “Bailey Revolution” (he’s the one who started it 35 years ago, or so) – but I understand the pressing demands of people’s daily lives so we can meet all those phony needs created by our money-driven society that is on the brink of collapse, so I have no expectations.  I have a lot wrapped up in this, personally, and will be doing this anyway.  I will follow it on my site, and it will be revolutionary.  I hope you join me in this quest for liberty and justice, and that we all share in their offspring – enduring peace.

As an anthem with some guiding wisdom, look at Eminem – White America.

Thank you.

PCRLN and Andy Ostrowski petition the Supreme Court Disciplinary Board for public comment on Bailey discipline

The Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network and Andy Ostrowski have submitted a petition to the Secretary of the Supreme Court Disciplinary Board, to be filed with the full Board, requesting that time be set aside at the next scheduled meeting of the Board for public comment on the matter of the discipline of Don Bailey.  The petition and the closing comments from Don Bailey, are included.

As raised in the Ostrowski Complaint, and in the petition, all proceedings of the third branch of government, the judiciary, in Pennsylvania, are conducted in secret.  It is a design built right into the Pennsylvania Constitution, and adopted as a matter of policy by the Supreme Court.  Neither the legislature nor the executive have any authority whatsoever over the affairs of the judiciary in Pennsylvania, and the Supreme Court won’t even subject itself to the sunshine laws.

Bailey Closing Statement

PCRLN Disciplinary Board Petition

The petition states:

Dear Ms. Bixler:

I write on behalf of myself, as an American citizen, and the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network, concerning the above-referenced matter.  Specifically, I would like to petition the Supreme Court Disciplinary Board to publicly announce the scheduling of their next meeting, and permit a period of public comment on the matter of the discipline of Don Bailey.

On February 15, 2012, I specifically asked Marcie Sloan when and where the next meeting was scheduled, and she told me it was during the first week of March in Philadelphia, and she could give me no further details.  I informed her of my intention to make this request, and she did tell me that she did know that Disciplinary Board meetings were not open to the public.

I am aware, of course, of the letter written by the Supreme Court in November, 1978 to the Legislature, opining that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and its various inferior agencies and/or boards are exempt from the provisions of the Open Meetings Law, and understand that that policy still prevails.  The Court claims that under Article 5, Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Supreme Court has the exclusive authority in all matters relating to the business of the courts, among which is the conduct of attorneys, and that any attempt to impose the requirements of a legislative enactment, i.e., the open meetings law, violates the separation of powers concepts built into the Constitutional scheme, with the dictates of the Constitution being supreme, and, in effect, trumping the laws enacted by the Legislature.

What has escaped the analysis, and, frankly, as raised in my federal lawsuit, are the federal Constitutional implications of this state of affairs.  It strikes at the conscience alone that an entire co-equal branch of government has a policy of conducting all of its affairs in secret, regardless of its technical constitutionality under the State Constitution.  I believe this violates First Amendment, separation of powers, equal protection, and due process principles of the United States Constitution.

I offer all of the foregoing because I understand that you likely feel constrained by the policy of your employer.  It is a request that must, nonetheless, be made, and I ask that you pass this request along to the full Board, as a formal petition on the above-referenced docket, for a formal response by the Board.  I will be happy to brief and/or argue it, if necessary.  The policy of the Supreme Court is just a policy until the courts themselves adjudicate these issues, or until the Legislature, in this case, changes the Constitution, and a formal response is requested, so that I can take the matter to the Supreme Court and, if necessary, to the federal court if/when I re-file my case.

As you will see, we have anticipated the concerns for Mr. Bailey’s confidentiality and/or privacy in connection with these proceedings, and he has agreed to endorse this request, and waive any and all such concerns.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter.



Andrew J. Ostrowski

I, Don Bailey, have indicated to Mr. Ostrowski that I support his idea of an open proceeding.  Mr. Ostrowski has developed a “press” approach to these matters, and I believe secrecy is counterproductive to effective governance.  I waive any and all confidentiality issues or concerns that the Supreme Court Disciplinary Board may have in connection with their deliberations, or the evidence relating to my disciplinary proceedings..


Don Bailey

We are hoping to have an online petition circulated, and will keep you updated on these efforts.

Thank you

The Second Amendment, Section 1983, assault weapons, and the Courts: the view of a non-gun owning civil rights lawyer

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington

I do not own a firearm, never have, and have no intention of doing so.  They scare me.  I think I’m left-handed, too, which seemed to be a problem the few times I did shoot them.  I agree, however, in every respect, with the view as fairly expressed by our one truly qualified founding father in the field.  It should be modified, and brought forward, to include the right of the people to own assault rifles, and even machine guns, so long as the restraint of evil interference is the goal.

The popular debate misses the mark – the MSNBC brand-second-amendment-supporters-as-the-paranoid-black-helicopter-crowd, or the NRA/Fox canned-line-contrived-by-monied-interest-crowd – and it misses the mark because it misses the meaning, and why, as with all other things covered on this site, it is the courts – fair and honest courts – that hold the key to striking the proper balance to maintain peace, order, and security in our society.

This is not a statement of policy, just the opinion of one writer, but we must, in this debate, err on the side of the caution so clearly and deliberately expressed by General Washington.  It is, after all, evil with which we are concerned.  In a nation, however, with a justice system fairly administered, guns and the absolute right to own them, without qualification, registration, or other than reasonable use restriction (i.e., a municipal ordinance or criminal statute banning shooting them in cities, towns, and the like, except in defense) is irrelevant to the debate, which does nothing but distract from the real social ills that have people all over America, like no other country, killing each other.  It is not in the nature of man to go around killing other men, and no gun is going to change that.  We are otherwise creating the conditions where people kill, some, perhaps, deliberately.

When we talk of the justified use of guns in popular social and political debate, we talk about them in terms of protecting “life,“ and “property,” and have wide agreement that their use is fully protected when in defense of those principles.  Though I don’t need to hear Joe Scarborough say “Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas have told us that we have a right to own a shotgun and a handgun to protect our families and property,” one more time, because he uses it in a misguided way, the fact is he is right (not about his view of the edicts Scalia issues from the bench), but that we can own a handgun and a shotgun for those purposes.  Where that leaves all those poor souls in Chicago, and on the streets of cities across America, in this gun debate, a much more enduring problem, is for another day, unfortunately, if one comes.

What General Washington was discussing, and what the Second Amendment is concerned with is “liberty,” which somehow seems to be the forgotten Constitutional right in this debate.  Our exalted founding fathers, who exercised their political will to construct our Constitution around the institution of slavery (a will we have failed, as a people, to carry out to its moral conclusion), also declared, properly, in this writer’s view, in the Declaration of Independence, that man is endowed by his creator, God, Allah, Yahweh, with “inherent and inalienable” rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” i.e., they are sacred, and signify our bond, alone, to our creator.  When there is risk that those bonds with our creator may be broken, our civil laws and codes provide for the justified use of all appropriate force to meet the threat.  Liberty is of no different quality or character of our bond with our creator, it is the essence of life itself, and everything our soldiers have fought and died for, and its defense is of no different character, legally or factually.

The “life” and “property” defense cases are typically very easy – was there a threat, and was the response appropriate to meet it.  Courts can administer these fairly easily, and maintain an appearance of order in a civilized society.  The case where a rogue and dishonest, sheriff, on the other hand, comes down a driveway with a bogus warrant, or gains entry onto your property under false pretenses, and you shoot him in the leg, lest he succeed in taking you away in handcuffs, while maybe a little different on the conscience, should not be any different analytically.  This is, in essence, what gun rights activists posit.  The gun restrains evil interference with the liberty with which you are endowed by your creator.  It’s nothing but an extension of the same physical force that would allow you to refuse to submit to a request to extend your hands so they can be cuffed.

To characterize this as “black helicopter” thinking is dishonest, and more.  I, personally, have sat in depositions and trials with police officers, often representing police officers who dared challenge them, who I have no doubt would abuse their power and exceed all authority, and enter houses, and violate people’s rights if there was no check, in the individual, to match their power on more than some rudimentary level – they’ve done it already.  Lest the reader get distracted by the Scarborough “but Scalia said we can own a handgun and a shotgun to protect ourselves and families,” I am stressing that these things take on an entirely different meaning when dealing with your government, and the visceral reactions that people have to them, and the internal struggle that goes on over wanting to believe the very best in the people to whom you have entrusted power, and the enduring struggle it is to try to overcome that evil does, indeed, exist, in its most Machiavellian form.

These things also take place on a gradient.  There are one sheriff towns with one bad sheriff, and ten police officer boroughs, with 3 bad ones, and 7 that turn the other way, and they all have guns.  There are good police officers and forces across America, to be sure, and I apologize to all of those fine police officers who I have represented along the way, but just like Judges and lawyers, my experience is that there are far too many that are not.  The opportunity for intrusions on our liberty are magnified in modern society, as is the temptation for abuse of power.  The tendency is for people to submit to that power and authority, even when used excessively or oppressively, and to go to jail, leave the house, or otherwise agree to cede your liberty, rather than risk further loss.  This is why recourse to the courts for restraint and remedies is essential.

Now, to the so-called “extreme” “black helicopter” argument, it is, frankly, shocking that this is passed off and reviled as paranoid imagination.  We just went through two suspect, some mainstream theorists say contrived, wars that drained our nations till to the point of near economic collapse.  If you add to that collapse, which we are all preparing for the coming of, daily, and, perhaps, a dirty bomb in LA or New York by some rogue nation that harbors terrorists, and uses terror, which, ala the Patriot Act, etc, we are told is a daily threat, there may be a rush and grab for power that may be the last – the immense military power of the United States of America in the hands of who is in power at the time, whenever that time comes.

With the collapse of the United States at risk, which, as we are told, is a daily thing, it is so dishonest as to be highly suspect that the media resoundingly brand the gun rights advocates as black helicopter paranoids.  The public comments of that NRA fellow appear to be contrived nuttiness to feed right into the frenzy to “soften,” slowly and deliberately, legislators and the public to in incremental intrusion on their Second Amendment rights.  Who knows what may happen if a Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Eric Cantor, or some other Koch brother “frog”/Dick Cheney water-carrier, ever gets power.  While these frogs may be kissed, and become the leaders of the people’s hopes and dreams that support them, right now they are frogs, and all we hear about from them is gloom and doom, and cliffs, and austerity, and sequestration.  When is this God-forsaken “Reagan revolution” going to stop?  They are at a tipping point, and are desperately gasping at the last straws of power, in this writer’s view – and they are in the vast, vast, vast minority.

Rachel Maddow just broadcast a documentary credibly positing that political leaders to whom our futures have been entrusted in the past may well have duped an entire nation into committing the lives of our sons, daughters, and fellow citizens, and the heroic servants themselves, to a completely contrived cause creating the very circumstances behind the near-collapse.  Having your guns – your machine guns, and assault weapons, with high magazine counts, canisters, calibers, and the like – would certainly seem to be a high priority on the minds of people capable of such things, and registration databases would point them right to where they need to go.  If they come with that state of mind, under my purely legal scenario, and facts that are reasonably conceivable, you would have a completely justified legal right to shoot them, and kill them, if necessary.

These things don’t need to be done with black helicopters, and it was very suspicious the way Alex Jones was uniformly vilified in the popular media for suggesting that drones could be used to kill American citizens, when just a week or so later, a memo authorizing exactly that, without judicial review, was released.  There are various networks in place in law enforcement, the masons being one, that allow the power to be executed on a very local level, and centrally controlled from above.  I know this from many cases, too.  The handgun and the shotguns that, in Joe Scarborough’s view, Justice Scalia has bestowed upon man as his natural right, simply won’t mean much in any scenario beyond the one-horse town, and there just aren’t many of those anymore.

42 United States Code Section 1983 (“Section 1983” as it is commonly known), is a statue, that, in one of Don Bailey’s iterations, is “ordained by God himself.”  Indeed, before resort to the gun, as outlined above, stands Section 1983, a civil law enforcement statute, used primarily in the federal courts, but also applicable in state courts.  It allows American citizens to sue officials who act “under color of law” for violations of their constitutional rights – to restrain them, and to seek remedies for them.  In modern America, the quintessential Section 1983 suit would be when a sheriff comes and arrests you and takes your property on a bogus or fraudulent mortgage claim reduced to judgment by a court beholden to the bankers (sorry, Condoleeza, education is not the civil rights issue of the 21st century, yet).  They come with guns, en masse, and take property, and arrest people, and, short of shooting them when they come – there is evidence of it right on this site, some that I witnessed – the courts must be open to redress these grievances in a proper due process proceeding, with hearings, and witnesses, and proper documents, and the like.  Whistleblower cases, i.e., reporters of official fraud and corruption, are another common Section 1983 case, and one Don Bailey has committed his professional life as a lawyer to more than any other (Ms. Rice hasn’t mentioned these either – See the Garcetti trilogy).

If there is one thing that is made clear on this site, it is that there is a fundamental failing in the courts of the United States to protect your constitutional rights.  These Courts understand this.  I have made suggestions on this site, and they have watched, and they know exactly what I’m saying – that they are deliberately, through the most nefarious of plans, creating an environment where no attorney ever will bring a Section 1983 claim again, or suffer the abuse that Don Bailey and I have suffered, or have your pro se case swept behind a wall of obfuscation that no reasonable, even intelligent, American citizen, will ever understand.  The courts, in failing to enforce their Constitutional mandates, are becoming the vehicles through which official oppression is allowed to corrupt endlessly, and the fillers of the bankers over-stuffed coffers – all at the expense of your individual life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness – it is that simple, and we will lay it out in endless detail, and give you every opportunity to understand it for yourself, and I will teach you through my case, which I intend to re-file.

As far as I know, other than Switzerland, America is the only country with fairly liberal gun ownership protections, for assault-type weapons.  I believe America is the only country in the world with a civil enforcement law that stands between man, his gun, his rights, and his God.  An evil influence is behind what is happening in the Courts, however you define and give face to that term, but there is no moral goodness known to man by which the conduct of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court, and those surrounding the Don Bailey proceedings are anything other than that – evil.

I don’t submit that God himself gave us guns, though appear so-inspired, nor that they are the only defense we have against official oppression and abuse on the scales we have seen.  God endowed us with minds, hearts, voices, and wills, too, and you must use them to see that the rights that bind God and man – life, liberty, and the pursuit of YOUR happiness – are being eroded, drastically, through the very institutions conceived to protect them but, as you will see through my lawsuit, are specifically designed to suppress them.  The gun is a mere technological extension of our carbon-based selves through which to exert our power, our will, thoughts, and ideas, and that is what the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network is all about.  If they are going to take away Section 1983, and they effectively are, and I’ve written about the Supreme Court Garcetti trilogy, and other things, then we need to have institutions built by the people to serve as a check to protect, through political will, and moral duty, against the resort to guns, as the only alternative.  I did hear, after all, that Haliburton has been building some mass internment camps out in Dick Cheney’s stomping grounds somewhere.  I don’t think he’s in the cattle business, and it doesn’t sound like a place where there’s much liberty.

Lest anyone think that this writer has forgotten about those children and their protectors in Sandyhook, it is the tears that I shed, and sickness that I felt, too, that compels me as a civil rights lawyer to speak what I have to speak.  People with mental illnesses, on drugs made in laboratories by people who aren’t studying the conditions of society, and companies that are connected as deeply as any other “person” into this corrupt, chronyist state of affairs, are doing the killing.  They have been oddly timed and spaced, geographically, in recent years, and there also appears to be a video game connection.  I understand they wear head phones when they play these things for hour after hour, day after day, and get all kinds of suggestions about killing, and expressions of the exertion of raw power.  Somewhere in this mix has to be why these poor, ill, Americans are killing innocent people all over the country.  These drugs are bad, and Dr. Stefan Kruszewski knows all about that.

I had a case for a fellow in the United States Army named Kurtis Arman, that I was never able to get going – he is a brave and brilliant man, and he was used for experimental drug treatment when he was a soldier – he was a programmed assassin, and killed a man when things went wrong.  I’d have to confirm the exact facts.  When he was in prison, he had some emergency surgery, and a capsule was removed from his leg, which was used to put the drugs in through which his behavior was controlled, through various environmental signals, and things of that nature.  I have pictures, and all of the documents.  My message, first, is to EA – it is time for you to move on what you have, and thank you for what you have done.  My message second is that there are some very real issues that need to be looked at before people start giving away their guns, and compromising the rights of hundreds of millions of Americans to protect their liberty as they deem fit as the panacea for a plague committed by a very “select” few mentally ill people.

As to the President, I voted for him, and believe he has done a great job given the hatred he is up against, which is appearing more and more contrived itself, and, frankly, the “we need a vote” line, repeated, over and over and over the way it has been, is just very irresponsible, and a bit suspect itself.  We don’t need a vote, we need some societal solutions for these institutional ills, and mass injustices – we need people to look up from their ipads, and iphones, and take some time away from the phony sense of fulfillment they get from their face books, and they need to see what is going on, and how it is a moral decay with which we are involved.  The wisdom of the one founding father who learned his lessons in an actual battle for freedom, with guns, needs to be honestly and thoroughly discussed and debated before this direct encroachment – one vote for now, even, softens the political climate for further erosion down the very near road.

I express my power with the mind and will God gave me, and intend to magnify it with this great equalizer we call the internet, and place a call out for all to do the same.  Guns scare me.

SirLeroy – I was paying just enough attention – if you’re still out there.

Thank you.

PCRLN endorses Kathleen Kane for Attorney General

Based upon her fresh, aggressive, and progressive message suited to the immediate needs of Pennsylvanians, and a strong and polished debate performance, PCRLN endorses Kathleen Kane, Democrat, for Pennsylvania Attorney General.

We have focused in prior articles on the immediate political and law enforcement needs of Pennsylvania, and endorsed Don Bailey in his earlier effort to be Pennsylvania’s next Attorney General.  Don had the message and the track record to back it up, and, while Kathleen Kane will have much to prove in terms of her courage to really go after the problems that plague Pennsylvania at their heart, her message promises a fresh and honest look at the issues that face us all.  Kane is a candidate who clearly believes in her message, and her care and concern for all Pennsylvanians, and not just the political elite, is manifest.  One thing that is clear is that in the legal profession, it takes a measure of courage to even say some of these things critical of the system, and at least Kathleen Kane has that courage to address the issues as she sees them.

David Freed, on the other hand, is distinctly not a viable alternative.  His debate performance was focused on the Republican Party line of overselling to the fiscal conservative tea-partiers, putting administration and budget ahead of vision and commitment.  We presume that every Attorney General is going to be committed to protecting children from predators and the elderly from scammers, and, if the military is the protection arm of the federal government, where fiscal management should never override the security of the citizen, the Attorney General’s Office should not be turned over to someone’s whose first priority is administrative.  There is a time and a place for ferreting-out administrative waste, but, with the law enforcement issues that Pennsylvania is facing, it is not the first day on the job.

There is a real question as to whether Tom Corbett even did fulfill his basic, and oft-recited, pledge to protect the children of Pennsylvania from predators when he was Attorney General, and Kathleen Kane has boldly taken the lead in promising a full, open, and honest inquiry and investigation into all of the problems that led to that Pennsylvania catastrophe.  The Freeh report was a report prepared by and paid-for by Penn State, and only a truly independent Attorney General, beholden only to an electorate of her own, can show that what happened at Penn State is a Pennsylvania problem, and not just a Paterno problem, or a Penn State problem.  On her words, Kathleen Kane is the only candidate who will ever give us a chance to confront these, and other, real problems facing Pennsylvania.

The central statement of principle of this site is “working to provide equal justice under the law in Pennsylvania,” and Kathleen Kane for Attorney General is the clear choice for all working toward that mission.

Thank you.

NEWS RELEASE: Andy Ostrowski and PCRLN file federal action based upon violations by courts and authorities in Bailey disciplinary proceedings

A federal civil rights lawsuit was filed today by Andy Ostrowski and the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network raising claims for violations of, and interference with, their rights under the United States Constitution.

The Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking to have Article 5 Section 10 (c) of the Pennsylvania declared to be in violation of the United States Constitution, and seeking to have the federal court enter an injunction enjoining all further action in the Bailey Pennsylvania disciplinary proceedings, as also being pursued in violation of the United States Constitution.

Ostrowski Complaint

Ostrowski alleges his rights have been violated in his own right, and as the colleague, friend, and client of Don Bailey.  The suit suggests that many other Bailey clients have been, and stand to continue to be, hurt and harmed by the same course of unlawful conduct, all as outlined in our August 9, 2011 Bailey under attack post, and elsewhere throughout this site, and the Complaint suggests the possibility of many more being added.

For question, contact Andy Ostrowski at 717-221-9500 or

Thank you