Category Archives: Attorney Disciplinary Cases

Don Bailey Hearing Transcripts

Don Bailey Disciplinary Hearing Transcripts

We post these transcripts with some reticence because there are certain contextual premises that need to be understood in terms of what a proper due process hearing is intended to encompass in our system of justice.  We also hope to bring them to you in more manageable form.  The premise that will be developed, from the standpoint of this site, is that, although shrinking from nothing factually, these transcripts can be relied upon for nothing as a basis upon which to deprive Mr. Bailey of his liberty and property rights in his chosen occupation.  These are “due process” issues, and have been addressed in the Bailey Docket, and which should have been addressed and resolved prior to ever convening a proper hearing.  There was no reason not to, and these transcripts will be further broken down and studied in that regard, an effort which we had hoped to do by now.

These hearing transcripts reflect the mockery that can be made when our courts are used as instruments of political oppression instead of affording open access to justice.  We apologize again for the strong opinion, and wish to maintain objectivity, but trust that further study will bear out that conclusion.  The due process issues that were unresolved left Mr. Bailey with very limited opportunity to confront his accusers, and the hearing did not proceed in any orderly fashion, with what appeared to be a coordinated effort between disciplinary counsel and hearing examiner to distract Bailey, avoid issues, and obstruct witnesses.  This was a hearing held by lawyers for lawyers, and should be held to an impeccable standard of due process, respect, and civility, and instead it degenerated into one witness being threatened with arrest for doing nothing but trying to testify completely, other witnesses repeatedly interrupted with discussions that turned the rules of evidence on their head, and a process that is fatally corrupt.  We are sensitive to the reverence with which we hold our esteemed judicial institutions, and it is because of that respect that efforts to denigrate them should be addressed in the strongest of terms.  We believe these proceedings, and everything that underlies them, have denigrated them.

Transcripts

Day one was primarily the testimony in the disciplinary counsel’s case of Judges Conner and Jones, which includes, among many other things, Judge Jones admitting that he has decided issues without waiting for Mr. Bailey to respond because, in essence, he already knew what he was going to say.

Day 1 Disciplinary Board Hearing DBailey

Day two involved a string of Don Bailey’s clients, some of whom have been mentioned in this site, and his colleagues Sam Stretton and Andy Ostrowski about their knowledge of discussions concerning efforts to get Don Bailey, among other things.

HearingDay 2

Further proceedings

After a delay of over 2 months, the Supreme Court has finally issued rules to show cause in connection with the subpoena issues.  More will be provided.

Federal Judge Arthur Schwab has thrown out the Bailey/John Doe case in its entirety, without even allowing the John Does to be named.  More on this as well.

Bailey challenges Supreme Court over due process violations in response to recommended suspension/PCRLN history of coverage of these matters

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Bailey clients demand cases be reopened/Hearing transcripts now available, we covered the efforts that Don Bailey’s clients were undertaking to seek to remedy the additional harms to them that were being caused by the agenda to “get” him, and how the discilinary proceedings revealed to them how him that

In The role of partisan politics in PCRLN – the Bailey “shit storm”

In Bailey motion demands that Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismiss disciplinary action against him

In PCRLN call goes out to Senators Casey and Toomey

In The politics of personal destruction – anatomy of the judicial lynching of Don Bailey – Caputo piles on

In Supreme Courts act in Silent Synchrony – Bailey disciplinary motions Secretly denied – once again no due process!

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

In Bailey responds (loudly and clearly) to state and federal disciplinary actions – proves state and federal complicity – and lack of basis to any charge of misconduct

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

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 hearing transcript and update

As I mentioned in my previous post after my August 27, 2013 federal court hearing relative to my reinstatement to practice, I would post the hearing transcript when it is received, and I have received a copy.  Here it is – Ostrowski August 27, 2013 Motion Hearing Transcript.

The witnesses were Stephen Schwartz. M.D., who is my current treating physician, Stefan Kruszewski, M.D., who is the doctor whose misconduct was central to my motion, as set out in the Ostrowski seeks reinstatement, and me.  My testimony begins on page 104.  The last update I shared was a description of the hearing, and I will keep the updates coming. My purpose in all of this is to give as many people as possible a view of what goes in in and around the court system in America.  Please have a look.

I have a brief due regarding my motion to reinstate, and some motions that will be contesting some of the attorney disciplinary rules as they apply to me, and as they are written, and will continue to update you on thee and other matters.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Andy Ostrowski seeks reinstatement in state and federal court – cites mistreatment by Stefan Kruszewski, M.D. as evidence justifying reopening proceedings

On May 10, 2013, I filed a motion with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court asking the Court to reopen the disciplinary proceeding resulting in my suspension of one year and one day, and to reinstate me to the active roll of Pennsylvania attorneys.  On May 17, 2013, I filed a similar motion with each of the three United States District Courts asking that I be reinstated into the federal bar of attorneys.  I am asking that my 2010 discipline be reopened, and reduced, or eliminated based upon new evidence that I learned of concerning my medical condition.

I have asked the Courts to allow me to introduce evidence that I have only this year learned that I suffered for 40 years with post traumatic stress disorder as a result of third-degree burns I suffered in a childhood accident.  I also learned that a doctor that I treated with from 2003-05 knew of my condition, and deliberately withheld that diagnosis from me, and then subjected me to a course of gravely improper treatment which exacerbated my condition and led directly to the matters for which I was disciplined.

*Updated January 31, 2014* Following are the motions I filed, as well as a civil lawsuit I filed against Stefan P. Kruszewski, M.D. and others arising out his treatment of me.  I have also filed a licensing complaint with the Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs.  These documents cover all of the major contentions I am making.

Ostrowski Civil Kruszewski Complaint

Ostrowski Motion to Reopen Disciplinary Proceeding

Ostrowski Motion for Reinstatement – Federal

Of course, I am concerned that the things that I have discussed on this site about the courts may be an impediment to my reinstatement, and have already heard whisperings that the Disciplinary Counsel is going to fight me hard on these issues, but I wrote what I have written here in the free exercise of my First Amendment rights, and with the integrity of all of our system of justice as my ultimate end.  There is no question that my motions are proper and meritorious, and I, and all my clients, know that I have done my very best at all times over my career to serve the end of justice as it is supposed to be served – even the Disciplinary Counsel who is planning their fight knows this.

How it all works out is, of course, in God’s hands, and he is a God of justice.  May his will be done, whatever that may be.  I’m just thankful that I got a 40 year old monkey off my back, and will continue doing things the way I always have, with the hope and desire to be back in front of the bar representing American citizens, and providing them with equal access to justice.

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.

Respectfully,

/s/

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..

        /s/                                         

Don Bailey

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

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 ajo@bsolaw.com.

Thank you

Bailey responds (loudly and clearly) to state and federal disciplinary actions – proves state and federal complicity – and lack of basis to any charge of misconduct

Linked below are the actual documents filed by Don Bailey (with slight revisions to the ODC response for readability) in response to both the state court and federal court disciplinary proceedings.  The documents will speak for themselves, as they should, and we will not comment significantly on their contents at this point.

There are a few contextual matters to consider, however.  First, the real genesis of this site centered around the very efforts as to which these responses relate, and have involved countless hours of Don’s time, and that of his staff, in getting together.  It was an unpaid job undertaken by Don Bailey for all of the clients he has represented over the years, indeed for all American citizens, and the effort cannot be measured in dollars in any case.  It was undertaken amidst an onslaught of abusive efforts to magnify his workload, and compromise the justice of the many clients he has continued to represent, and expects to continue to represent.  It is impeccable work product.

For relevant background, we commend our readers to our August 9, 2011 Bailey under attack article.  It provides what proved to be a fair summary of these matters.  The Bailey response to the ODC brief (below) draws upon the hearing transcripts, which are also attached here, and have been discussed.  The Bailey docket contains many of the documents referenced in the brief, and the Motion to Dismiss should also be consulted for context.

Bailey Brief in Response to Office of Disciplinary Counsel

The Brief of Don Bailey in response to the ODC brief is Don’s formal response to the brief of ODC, which we will provide.  Again, it is edited only slightly for readability.  This is the first post-hearing step in the Pennsylvania disciplinary process.  This brief goes to the hearing committee (family lawyer Brian Cali’s 3 member panel).  It is believed that Cali has marching orders.

From there, the matter goes to the actual Supreme Court Disciplinary Board.  That Board is not properly constituted as a matter of law.  It is supposed to have two non-lawyer members, but only has one.  That one is the brother of Supreme Court Justice Max Baer.  Justice Baer is also related to Patti Bednarik, formerly of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, who is central to the entire case for reasons that will become clear to the reader.   Justice Baer has recused himself from one of the matters filed with the Supreme Court.

From the Disciplinary Board, the matter goes to the Supreme Court itself.  The review by the Supreme Court will be “plenary”, i.e., total and complete review of everything.  Only the Supreme Cort can ultimately discipline.  As it stands, it is only clear on the record that Justices Castille (Middle District) and Baer (Western District) have had any involvement or knowledge of these proceedings in any material way.  The Supreme Court has not spoken at all on any of the merits of the matters placed before them – just very short orders denying the claims for relief.  The 385-page King’s Bench was denied by Justice Castille in mere hours.  They will at some point have to confront all of these issues, unless dismissed sooner.

Additionally, the following is the response that Bailey filed on March 23, 2012 to the disciplinary matter initiated by Judge Kane on January 3, 2011.  This was less than three weeks before the Pennsylvania ODC charges were filed.  We suggest, like we did on August 9, 2011, that these matters were orchestrated between state and federal authorities – Marty Carlson, Paul Killion, and some judges, and the Bailey brief speaks more to some of those issues as well.

Bailey Response to Federal Rule to Show Cause

The Kane charges were “investigated” (he never met with Bailey) by Hubert Gilroy.  Gilroy was on the panel, along with Killion, to select Carlson for Magistrate Judge in Harrisburg in the same courthouse where he had been a U.S. Attorney, and assistant, for a quarter-century or so.  Within mere months of his ascendency to the bench, Carlson published the April Fool’s day 2010 statewide smear and sanction of Don Bailey.  Judge Kane dusted off this charge that had been sitting, and directed the response to coincide with the ODC response, among the tremendous other workload heaped upon Bailey, as he has fought for all of our constitutional rights.

We ask you to take your time to read and understand the Bailey brief, in particular.  Come back, if you must, but if you have an interest in fair and just courts, and the real meaning of your civil rights, and the things we have discussed on this site, all these things should be completely understood.  As the brief makes clear, Bailey still has not been heard.  It’s finally a good place to start.

Thank you.