Category Archives: Don Bailey

Don Bailey 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

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.

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.

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

On December 7, 2011, Don Bailey filed a motion to dismiss the disciplinary case against him.  The Motion was filed directly with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and alleges that the process itself has been so bereft of constitutional protections, that it is an effective nullity, that there is clear evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, along the lines of what has already been set forth in previous posts, and, most importantly, that he did not violate any rules of professional conduct in any respect.  As it turns out, Bailey’s appropriate and respectful (as those things go) complaints of judicial misconduct, have turned out to be true, as the record of the hearing transcripts (void for any purpose involving Bailey’s license) already has shown.  Please read the motion filed by Bailey:

Bailey Supreme Court Motion to Dismiss Discipline Case

Significantly, that motion contains cites evidence suggesting that Middle District Judge Christopher C. Conner has testified falsely under oath at the hearing.  The issue is set forth by Bailey as follows:

16.          Judge Conner is believed to have testified falsely on the issue of whether he was a complainant to the ODC, testifying in the hearing that he was not.  Bailey received a “Complaint of the Honorable Christopher C. Conner” sent by ODC to Bailey dated November 29, 2006 outlining 5 separate cases on his docket upon which he was requesting action by the ODC, i.e., ODC identified him as the complainant, and the information about the specific cases had come from somewhere.  A copy of this correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit D.  Respondent has alleged that Paul Killion told him that Conner was “pestering” Killion to “do something” about respondent, and as of November 29, 2006, that contention is substantiated.  The conversation between Killion and Bailey was in December 2008, meaning that there must have been more contact until 2008.  At the August 11, 2011 proceeding, Conner testified as follows:

Q: Okay. Now have you ever written a complaint about me that you sent to the Disciplinary Board?

A: The only [occasion] in which I forwarded a concern to the Disciplinary Board was in connection with the Conklin matter and that was contained in an order in which I directed the Clerk of Court to forward my opinion to the Disciplinary Board to determine whether or not there needed to be an action taken.

Q: Okay. That’s

A: Beyond that, no.

N.T. August 11, 2011, pp. 119.

Judge Conner’s testimony appears to be false, and this Court has an obligation to do something about it, in addition to dismissing all charges against respondent.  Incidentally, all of the allegations in the Conner complaint are bogus, as will be more fully addressed by further submission, if permitted as requested.  Regardless, Respondent’s contention that he was told by Killion that he was being prosecuted because Judge Conner, and perhaps others, were “pestering” Killion to “do something” is substantiated.”

This testimony in itself substantiates the claim of Bailey that this has been a “fix” from the start.  No judge or no prosecutor would allow themselves to be so  woefully under-prepared for a hearing to take the property and livelihood of an attorney (they certainly didn’t know Don Bailey) as to testify in such a sloppy manner, and certainly no honest judge would ever testify falsely, but a less scrupulous one might if the the hearing was intended to be a perfunctory pro forma political exercise.  Conner talked himself right out of any wiggle room in this testimony, revealing his state of mind that he had something to hide, and in an effort to remove all doubt, tried to cut off all further inquiry into the matter.  When he said “The only [occasion] on which I forwarded a concern to the Disciplinary Counsel was in the Conklin matter” and “Beyond that, none,” the falsity in his testimony is revealed in light of the November 29, 2006 correspondence – according to disciplinary counsel, he had been a serial complainant.  Had he simply said “NO” to the first question, he may have been able to lawyer his way out of the accusation of falsity.

He must believe all those slanderous things that he wrote and used his judicial office to publish about Bailey, calling Bailey incompetent and a liar, when it appears it is the federal judge himself who is, and has been revealed as such.  While Conner may at some level have been a victim of the lawyer acculturation otherwise discussed, and taken his cues when he was young, before and after being a judge, from the formerly esteemed federal judge Rambo, justifying some hope of conciliation, he has now put his fitness to be a judge directly at issue.  We cannot support judges who appear to show no respect for the oaths they take, and he took two – that for his office, and that for his testimony – he has violated both.  Again, apologies are required here, but only apologies for having to disclose that a federal judge has apparently testified falsely under oath.  These judges have had no problem for years tearing down the reputation of attorneys and subjecting clients to the further abuses that they came to the courts seeking refuge from – they have done so callously and they have done so falsely.  We apologize for telling you these things only because they are demonstrably true.

Judge Jones further testified that in the case that led to the sanctions and disciplinary vendetta against him that he didn’t let Bailey respond to a sanctions-related motion that was not even filed until 5 months after the case was closed because, in effect, he “knew what you would say.”  Can you imagine the number of clients, Bailey class members, who have been damaged and injured by this kind of judicial mentality, i.e., their access to justice is cut off because of who their attorney is – this is what Bailey has said as well, and has been proven right on as well – from the sworn testimony of his own accusers.

The Bailey discipline case must be dismissed.  Please read it and decide for yourself.  Everything you need to make that decision is before you here, and more that will be brought to you.

Thank you.

Bailey hearing status and PCRLN updates

As we reported in previous posts, there has been something of a hiatus imposed on the Bailey disciplinary proceedings, although there has been some working behind the scenes to move the case forward.  The hearing tapes have been received and are being transcribed, and we hope to bring you both the transcripts and the sound files here.

The Bailey docket shows that Bailey has submitted about 2500 pages of documents into the record of the proceedings, and we hope to get these documents and bring them to you here as well.  Apparently, under the odd procedure being followed in this case where lawyers are adjudicating rights of lawyers under the auspices of the Pennsylvania Supreme, and because of the outstanding matters that remained unresolved related to whether Mr. Bailey’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights will be afforded him, the Disciplinary Board has agreed to  allow Bailey to submit the documents where he and others have complained about judicial misconduct in the past, and to support the allegations he has made that underlie the current complaint.  It appears Bailey and his colleagues and clients have been complaining about these things for years, and nothing was ever done but attack Bailey and others in indirect ways, as we have discussed generally, and as we continue to reveal.

Please review our prior posts as to the status of these proceedings otherwise.  While there have been periods of apparent inactivity on this site, efforts continue to be underway to fulfill every goal as stated herein, and to continue to work and to bring you information on the state of civil rights in the State of Pennsylvania and elsewhere.  We will continue to bring you the “case updates” and hope to be more regular in making contributions to keep the genuinely appreciated interest that has been expressed in our efforts.  The issues that we are bringing you have no chance of success without public attention and public light, and we will be bringing these issues to those responsible to make political changes in the near future as we have promised.  For the time being, as suggested early on, the initial focus, or “crucible” if you will, for the elucidation of these complex issues is the case of Don Bailey, and the many things we will continue to bring you related to those proceedings.

Thank you.

 

The Bailey Docket – pleadings and filings in the Bailey disciplinary hearing

There is no better way for each of us to participate in seeking a public solution to the problems we have described in other posts, as revealed through the analysis of the Don Bailey disciplinary process, than to understand the jurisdiction of the courts, and exactly how they do business in cases such as these.  The Don Bailey situation is quite unique, as it involves a clear clash between two wholly separate “jurisdictions”, state and federal, implicating some very important principles at the heart of our system of government.  We hope eventually to provide you with all the detail you will need on these concepts of what is known as “federalism”, but for now we commend you to The Federalist Papers, a series of essays published in 1787 under the name Publius (written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay), explaining the advantages of the U.S. Constitution.

Briefly, as it relates to this case, there has been a clear trend in civil rights cases to invoke the Eleventh Amendment to maintain rigid separation between the jurisdiction of the federal courts and actions involving the affairs of state government, and some of the judges involved in the Bailey matter have used the Eleventh Amendment, properly to be sure in cases, to leave litigants without a remedy in federal court.  More recent activist conservative courts, such as the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, have gravely blurred those lines, and the Don Bailey situation reveals the evils to be avoided.  In this case, the state courts and the federal courts have deliberately crossed all jurisdictional lines, and have combined their efforts to cutoff civil rights cases that involve public corruption.

The Bailey Docket:

The first document is what is known as a petition to invoke the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s extraordinary or “King’s Bench” jurisdiction.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is among the most powerful courts in the country, and King’s Bench jurisdiction derives, as its name implies, from the extensive powers of the courts at English common law, and essentially allows the Court to take jurisdiction of any matter pending in any of the courts of the state.  In this case it was requested because of the imminent public importance of issues of judicial corruption in light of the “kids for cash” scandal that led to former Luzerne County Judge Ciavarella being sentenced to 28 years in prison for corruption on the second day of the Bailey hearings.  The petition specifically raises issues of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, and wholesale violations of the rights of Mr. Bailey and his clients.  It was denied less than 24 hours from its filing.  Please feel free to read it and decide if you think it should have been denied so quickly.

Kings Bench

The next document is the Complaint for Discipline that was actually filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (Killion and Fulton) initiating this public proceeding.  Please note that among the accusations being made against Mr. Bailey is that he wrote and submitted a document to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of his client Thom Lewis (since when is that a crime?) that Mr. Bailey did not even write, yet they refuse to withdraw this claim knowing it to be false.  The rest of the allegations speak for themselves, and the proof offered at the hearing will fill in the details.

Bailey Discipline Complaint

The discipline answer is Mr. Bailey’s response to the complaint, corresponding to each numbered paragraph.  It speaks for itself.

Bailey Discipline Answer


Bailey has filed a Complaint in federal court, which was filed in an effort to have the federal court stop the imminent denial of the rights of Bailey and his clients by going into the pending hearing without having any right to present the evidence that needed to be presented.  The Complaint names Bailey and 25 “John/Jane Doe” plaintiffs, his clients, and there will likely be updates to these pleadings sometime in the not-too-distant future.

Federal Complaint

The following document is the motion for injunctive relief filed by Bailey to stop the hearings.  It was denied by a Judge of the Western District of Pennsylvania, Nora Barry Fisher, who just last year was specially assigned to the Middle District (where Conner, Kane, Jones, and Carlson are located) to deal with a case against other Middle District Judges.  It was dismissed.

Motion for TRO

Again, we expect to have transcripts of the proceedings in the near future.

The lesson of the Bailey disciplinary hearings (phase one) – reform is needed

Two days of testimony have concluded in the case to “get” the law license of Don Bailey, and the lesson of the hearing is resoundingly clear – reform is needed.  The first day involved two federal judges appearing before a hearing chairman/divorce attorney who may still be under federal investigation in the “kids for cash” scandal, and proving that Don Bailey was right when he charged federal judges with having meetings to “get” him.  The second day was a string of Don Bailey clients who testified courageously to their personal experiences in dealing with the effects of the abuse of their attorney.  Bailey’s legal assistant and two of his colleagues also added testimony.  All of the testimony will be posted here when it is available.

As day two wore on, the witnesses became stronger, and the abject abuse and obstruction by the hearing chairman and the prosecutor became uglier and uglier.  Although the two days (the hearing record remains open pending issues currently before the Supreme Court) proved to be vindication in most ways for the allegations that Don Bailey has made in recent years, it was a black-eye for justice, in our state and in our nation, and rather than recounting the details of the proceedings, it is the looking-forward that serves the mission of this site.  Don knew he was right when he said the things he said, and those things were clear to every of the 50 or so American citizens who observed the proceedings over the past two days, and what became clear is that reform is desperately needed.

The difficulty is that the reforms that are needed are deep and systemic.  The complete dominion of the Supreme Court, i.e., complete abnegation of the separation of powers doctrine, has led to an autocratic system in the state courts, and no freedom for lawyers to criticize from within.  As a result, there is far too much control vested in the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, a problem exacerbated in this case by an out-of-control political operative, Chief Counsel Paul Killion.

The hearing was reduced to an embarrassing charade because the hearing was proving that the system was broken, and the behavior of the hearing examiner and prosecutor became part of the proof.  The fact is that an attorney who is right about corruption in the courts has nowhere he or she can safely go because he or she is controlled by the courts alone.  This is what the hearings proved as the major failing in the state system.  Legislative oversight, or even a lawyer’s rights bill of sorts, is needed.  The difficulty, of course, is that the Supreme Court’s complete control over the legal system derives from the Constitution itself.  We will continue, however, to explore solutions.

The problem is made even more complex because there are failings in the federal system as well.  In this case, however, these failings may be attributable, in part, to personalities in and around the Harrisburg legal community, state and federal, that are coming together to settle an old political score, that score being that Don Bailey had already proven that persons such as former United States Attorney and current United States Magistrate Judge Marty Carlson, and Paul Killion, were corrupt in the past too.  Later posts will show how the “midnight appointment” of Marty Carlson to Magistrate Judge (federal judge) by a panel on which Paul Killion (state disciplinary counsel) served, is further playing out with the federal judges, through Chief Judge Kane, going after Mr. Bailey as well.  A problem like this is easy enough to fix in the short term.

The larger problem that exists lies in the lap of your U.S. Senators, Pat Toomey and Bob Casey.  Federal judicial appointments are essentially controlled by the senators from the state in which the vacancies exist – presently there are three vacancies in the Middle District that are not being filled, likely pending the outcome of these proceedings whose outcome appears pre-determined, but the fight will not be given up nonetheless.  Senators Casey and Toomey have been made aware in detail of what is going on in Harrisburg right now, and we are waiting to see how the problem is addressed.

The position of federal judge is a life appointment, which respects the wisdom, discretion, and temperament that is called for from those who are appointed to serve.  See Federalist No. 78.  The award of such positions based upon true “merit”, intellectual merit, has been lost, and the positions are being given out as returned political favors.  Judge Jones, after all, was a Liquor Control Board Chairman, and a co-campaign fund-raising chairman with Tom Corbett for former Governor Ridge, scarcely a showing of qualified experience; yet into his hands was placed one of the most important cases in a generation, Kitzmiller v Dover, a case for which Jones was heralded as great legal mind, and received worldwide acclaim.  It was later shown that the greater portion of his opinion was “plagiarized”, if you will, word-for-word and typo-for-typo, from a brief of the ACLU.

We do not at this time need to take on the manner in which judges are selected, accepting merit selection as wholly workable, but there need to be standards to ensure that the decisions are indeed based upon merit, i.e., fidelity to the rule of law, and, most importantly, the standard of review, and a record of good judgment, discretion, wisdom, and integrity.  Again, these issues will be developed, but for now it is time to let your Senators know that you also know that the system is broken, at least in Harrisburg, and that changes need to be made immediately.

We expect again to have transcripts of these last two days of hearings in the near future, and will keep you apprised of all developments.

Thank you.

Don Bailey’s opening statement in defense of lawyers and your civil rights

Members of Judicial-Corruption.net, PennsylvaniaCivilRightsLawNetwork.com, and TrueDemocracyParty.net, as well as members of the Berks County Patriot Board, and dozens of loyal clients of Don Bailey, got together and united as we were all in the courtroom for the hearing of Don Bailey this morning in Harrisburg, PA for what really is, or could be, one of the most important hearings to take place in the history of our country that should have never been allowed to occur.

The hearing began before a hearing examiner by the name of Brian Cali, Esquire.  Mr. Cali is believed to be under federal investigation for his role in an ankle bracelet business that was connected to the “kids for cash” scandal.  Cali was asked by Bailey to recuse himself from the process, but Cali refused, and has never denied being under investigation at the present time.  Marty Carlson, the federal magistrate judge appointed to get Bailey, was U.S. Attorney early on in the kids for cash scandal, and has been criticized for turning a blind eye to that judicial corruption early on before it got out of control.  Chances are that Carlson’s, Killions, and Cali’s paths have crossed before.  What is Cali’s true role in the kids for cash investigations?  We demand to know.  Is he “giving” them Bailey in exchange for favorable criminal treatment? Did Carlson ‘s, Killions, and Cali’s paths cross again?  Again, we demand to know.

The testimony was consumed by a day of 2 federal judges appearing in state court to go after a lawyer.  Bailey is charged for saying that judges met to discuss how to get him, and that is exactly what the testimony was.  Phone calls and meetings between federal judges about Don Bailey.  Judge Conner was visibly nervous and had the “i don’t recalls” typically scattered throughout his otherwise disturbing testimony.  Everything about his and Jones demeanor suggested that they know they have been caught by Don Bailey, and that they are trying still to figure out a way out.  We have one – impeachment!

These judges don’t work on cases together, so there is only one reason to be discussing him, and then working with state authorities to get him – because what Bailey said is true.  Don Bailey is being prosecuted for true statements about judicial corruption.  We will have all the testimony here when it becomes available.

The crux of the issue is the preservation of our civil rights, and our ability to enjoy due process rights and equal protection, and every other basic constitutional right that we have known all our lives, that must stand up when it comes to blowing the whistle on corruption – at any level of government – executive, legislative, or judicial – state or local.

We caught up with Mr. Bailey after the proceedings today, and he was kind enough to give us a copy of his Opening Statement:

Opening Statement of Respondent Don Bailey:  August 11, 2011

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fulton, and Attendees,

I very much appreciate the opportunity to defend myself, to the extent I can under the limitations I must endure, against charges that I wrote in a pleading that certain federal judges were misbehaving.  I confess that I did so.  Because objectively speaking, they were.  And I also confess that I still believe every word that I said.

The Federal judicial system, at least in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, has been corrupted by certain errant and dishonest judges.  There is no need to address what we have suffered, as of late, in our state judicial system.  And even greater than the injustices that I am suffering right here are the deprivations of American citizens who deserve, but have been denied, their day in court.  Political and personal misconduct by judicial officers continues in our system.  The evidence is overwhelming.  Favoritism, selective law firm influence, cronyism and political retribution are common place.  Corruption in Pennsylvania has become a pervasive way of life.  There isn’t a lawyer, nor is there a functionary in this system, who is not aware of these facts.  And just because there’s always been some wrongdoing doesn’t mean this is okay.  There are two generic classes of victims in this orchestration.  The unfortunate spill off reflects on the large maturity of our judges, the decent and honest judges whose service we are privileged to enjoy, countless citizens are required to depend upon a class of dishonest and corrupt public officials to try and seek redress of their grievances.  There is no greater example of the corruption which exists in Pennsylvania today than this very proceeding.  Pennsylvania’s so-called Lawyer’s Disciplinary System is a fraud.  If a lawyer dares to complain then his or her profession and livelihood are threatened and destroyed.  Furthermore, as Paul Killian’s behavior demonstrates, in one place you apply standards, in the next place you don’t, it all depends on who the favor is being done for.

I have been denied the opportunity to subpoena fact witnesses.  Why?  I have been denied the opportunity to review and require the production of documents and files.  Why?  I have been falsely misrepresented and intentionally attacked by certain manipulative judges, like Mr. Conner, but my clients and I expected to refrain from protest for fear of suffering personal retribution.  This entire process originated with a courteous request to Mr. Conner to reconsider a racist memorandum he wrote in a York County case.  I am suffering retaliation today because I had to courage and loyalty to my client, Stephen Conklin, to do what was right.  And the facts will clearly demonstrate that.  They are irrefutable.  But Mr. Conner moved to have them struck.  It is partly for these reasons that an effort is underway to impeach him.  See the Venesevich writ of certiorari which demonstrates not just judicial excess, but clearly illustrates the arrogance and abuse that lawyer’s and citizens can suffer because of the privileges that evolved in our judicial system that protect dishonest and abusive judges like my accusers.  The document upon which my charges are based stem from my complaining that my client Thom Lewis and I were the victims of judicial misbehavior.  Well, I believe we were.  When we attempted to present evidence we were even denied the right to subpoena witnesses in a so-called sanctions hearing.  We weren’t even allowed to question the individual who claimed to have done the legal work we were sanctioned for in the legal panorama devoid of due process.

This board is not even legally constituted.  It does not have the civilian representation it’s supposed to have.  It inappropriately mixes prosecutorial, adjudicatory, and investigative functions.  It has been recognized nationally as unreliable.

I’m the best evidence.  As I’ve been told I am here because federal judges Yvette Kane, John E. Jones III, Anthony Scirica, and Christopher Connor complained that I criticized them.  Magistrate Judge Carlson has virtually thrown tantrums comprising uncontrollable attacks on me personally which then strangely ended up being manipulated into the media.  That stemmed from my innocent questioning of his mysterious midnight appointment and the committee behind it.  So like political operatives carrying out the wishes of a political boss, I am being hauled in here to make sure that the civil rights issues I raise and the people I represent don’t have a chance to present their cases in court.  This begs other questions.  More is yet to come.

The vast majority of my clientele are police officers.  Invariably their cases touch upon and require the disclosure of public corruption.  Today whistleblowers and loyal hard-working law enforcement personnel are under attack by our Federal courts.  Now, I’ve had the privilege of representing dozens of Pennsylvania State troopers against abuses in their own leadership system.  A case study on those cases alone should provide revealing information about the politics of our federal courts, or more specifically certain judges.   I have won over $5 million in verdicts and through settlements in just the Middle District.  Perhaps a study should be done on how those verdicts have been taken away.  I assure this committee it will be.

This is not a world of even trying to exercise neutral and detached judgments.  It’s a world of politics and egos and arrogance.  The responsibility of any official community is to at least try and let it police itself.  Our judicial system cannot do so.  And this so-called disciplinary system is little more than an enforcement arm of those who would abuse it.  The manner in which this hearing process has been conducted is a testament to the entire systems’ excesses.  Institutional reform is needed.  Judges should not be policing or regulating lawyer’s and judges should not have the bootstrapped protections they have enshrouded themselves in.

The rules of conduct that are being used to abuse me are both unconstitutional as written and as applied.  Although I have no doubt as to the outcome of this process I do have a political and more duty to fight it.

Please allow me to finish with a brief personal story.

When my children ask me, and I have six, how I seem myself, assuming I see myself as a dad and husband first, am I an ex-football player, or an ex-congressman, or an ex-statewide officer holder I laugh and tell them I’m a jungle fighter.  That’s what I did best.  That’s what I knew best and that’s what I excelled at.  My mind goes back to a day long ago back in 1969 in Vietnam.  Delta Company had surrounded a few enemy soldiers in a draw near the base of Nui Khe Mountain, just a little Southwest of the Villiage of Nam Hoa.  Naturally, my platoon was sent in to get them.  Because we were the best.  As we moved up the draw through a little blue we began to find bones.  Little bones at first and then bigger and heavier bones and then skulls.  We found the disjointed chopped skeletons of over 200 people who had been marched out of Nam Hoa in 1968.  Their names had been on a list because they had said things critical of the Communists.  That’s all they did.  They had criticized the political structure.  Now the story, which is true, is certainly an exaggeration to press the point here.  But how far removed is this so-called hearing or process?  Perhaps not as far as some of you would like to think?  You would take my right to earn a living, but more important my right to represent people that not one of you has the courage to stand up and fight for.  That I voiced substantive criticisms is not important.  You haven’t the slightest interest in the accuracy or efficacy of what I said about these judges’ and their misbehavior.  Your only fear is that someone will hear what my clients and I said and might pay attention to it.  You see what you seek to stop is any attorney saying anything critical of any judge at any time.  The judicial system charged with the responsibility for protecting American citizens from First Amendment intrusions by the government is the greatest abuser of all.

 

Civil rights lawyer Don Bailey under attack and he and clients sue federal judges for misbehavior

The paramount issue our legal system is presented with currently is the ongoing campaign, if you will, by a small clique of federal judges, and their state and federal political friends, to go after the law license of decorated war veteran, former congressman, former Pennsylvania Auditor General, and now prominent civil rights attorney Don Bailey.

Don got into the practice of civil rights over the fallout from his own victimization when, as Auditor General, he revealed substantial pubic corruption in the State of Pennsylvania at its highest levels.  He was visited by state and federal officials, including the United States Attorney himself, and was, in essence, asked what it would take – what graft, gift, or favor – in order for him to back down and look the other way.  Don refused, and stridently, with the truth behind him, assured these scoundrels that he would never be bought, and ever since that day, Don has been in a battle to reveal public corruption, and to fight for its victims.  There is an extensive interview of Don that is recorded in his website, which is linked to this page.

To the best of our knowledge, Don is the only politician in American history to have prevailed in a defamation lawsuit against his political opponent (Barbara Hafer) that was the first civil rights lawsuit he filed after leaving public office.  The case, Bailey v. Hafer, languished in the courts for a decade, and in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for years, before decided in his favor.  While the case never did go to trial, it did settle favorably for Don, and, despite the fact that Don had his bright political future stolen from him unjustly, and lost everything he had, his only request was the Ms. Hafer apolgize to him, in writing, which she did.  In the apology, Hafer admitted she lied about him, and pointed the finger at certain “federal officials”, one of whom was Martin C. Carlson, former United States Attorney, and now a United States Magistrate Judge, under Kane, Conner, and Jones, and the author of 2008 scandalous ans scurrilous attack on Don Bailey in a 56 page memorandum that was distributed through statewide media.  Don’s reply was not.

The federal courts, and some of the political operatives who run them, including Marty Carlson, have taken up the cause for their political “friends”, and have joined in the effort to protect the corrupt politicians and judges, and to end the career of Don Bailey, and to cut off access to the federal courts for the many, many police officers, state and local officials, public employees, minorities, and others who have been victimized and abused by corrupt people and power structures, and Pennsylvania will be left to languish in the backward ways of thinking and behaving that have destroyed public confidence in the judiciary, and even in our elected officials.  These judges are out to hurt and harm Don Bailey and the civil rights clients he represents because they, too, are beholden to the corrupt system that put them where they are – on the bench of our esteemed federal courts donning the powerful black robe, where they then use their tremendous power to protect the structures that got them there rather than foster their independence from those systems in recognition of the singularly-significant ability of a federal judge to influence cultural climates.

The claims of Don Bailey will be proven, and the proof is all there, and we hope to share this all with you through our initial efforts on this site.  Don has had over $3,000,000.oo in verdicts awarded to his clients, from all walks of life, and significantly in recent years from the ranks of law enforcement themselves,  by juries performing their roles and exercising their responsibilities as American citizens.  All of these verdicts have been taken away as part of the plan to harm him and his clients.  We do not cast aspersions on the judiciary lightly, nor do we wish to suggest that every judge is corrupt, because certainly most, hopefully, are not, but Don’s cases are being “fixed”, the old-fashioned, crooked way – by picking up telephones and through winks and nods, but the evidence is clear – from the $1.5 million verdict he was successful in obtaining on behalf of 2 state attorney general narcotics agents against, inter alia, the then-Attorney General himself, Mike Fisher, who now, of all things is a Judge on the Court, the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals, that threw out the verdict against him, to the recent decision overturning another case where a state trooper was a victim of wiretapping that was committed by his own State Police supervisors in a dishonest effort to hurt and harm him.

The further plan, which is already afoot through the, attack by Marty Carlson, and will be shown through evidence relating to Judge Conner, is to portray Don Baily as a disgruntled, malcontent, and “fallen star” who has imagined grand conspiracies to justify and validate the political losses that he suffered 20  years ago, but that is a lie, every word of it, and it is already out there as a myth that is believed by many.  The Hafer apology came in the year 200o.  At that time Carlson was United States Attorney, Jones was a co-campaign chairman/fundraiser with Tom Corbett for tom Ridge, Kane was on the federal bench in Harrisburg, and the Third Circuit Judge Mike Fisher case (cases/saga) were already in the courts or very near, annd the trial on those cases was in 2003.  After that trial, an email circulated through then Attorney General Fisher’s office that “Bailey has caused a shit storm” in Harrisburg.  Conner acceded to the federal bench in 2004, and immediately launched into what are obvious attacks by a political neophyte that have continued, unbroken, and coalesced with the others, and from there you will see an continuous chain of abuses, right through the day of this posting, and the hearings scheduled for August 11 and 12 in Harrisburg that will prove that this is indeed a conspiracy involving federal judges and others to harm the rights of innocent American citizens whose constitutional rights have been violated because of who their lawyer is and what he represents to them.  Nothing can be more anathema to our entire system of justice.

The current strategem being employed is to use the sycophants in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board and its Disciplinary Counsel, life-long political lackey Paul Killion, to mount an attack on Don Bailey’s law license through an easily provable corrupt effort of these same federal judges in concert with their state political friends.  The attachment to this post is what is called a petition in the Supreme Court’s “King’s Bench” or “extraodinary” jurisdiction, where the Supreme Court is asked directly to discipline itself, and to intervene in these corrupt proceedings and bring them to an end.

See also:  Exhibit 3, Thom Lewis v. Jesse Smith, et al, Third Circuit motion contains the allegations for which Bailey is being charged

The Pensylvania Supreme Court, and the Lawyer’s Disciplinary Board, as well as the Judicial Misconduct Board have fallen into disrepute of recent due to the criminal prosecutions of Luzerne County Judges Ciavarella and Conahan in what was known nationwide as the “kids-for-cash” scandal.  Recent commissioned reports have identified the failings in the system that had led to the judicial corruption scandal that gave the entire state a black-eye, and the Don Bailey discipline gives the Supreme Court a clear chance to prove its own integrity by addressing the same failings that exist in regard to Don Bailey, and to end the corruption that undermines the confidence we all have in our judiciary, and to usher in the reforms needed so that American citizens do not continue to be victimized by our courts for daring to do something about their victimization by their government, and those others “acting under color of law.”

Don Bailey is also in the process of filing a federal civil rights lawsuit, on behalf of himself and at least 25 of his victimized clients, who will be named as plaintiffs, and will be making very extensive accusations of corruption and unlawful behavior on the part of a wide-array of state and federal officials, including the judges who have worked specifically to hurt and harm him.  These judges and other operatives have felt that because they can control the access to information to the public, and how it is presented, they could ostracize, isolate, and surround Don, and move quickly and easily in for the kill.  Well, despite the fact that they have been known and out to get Don Bailey for nearly 20 years, they should know that his honesty is unshakable, his commitment to his clients is second-to-none, and the confidence that people have in him is unwavering, but of course they wouldn’t know that, because they are the people who he has been fighting against, and they woefully underestimate the motivation of honest American citizens to expose and oppose corruption in our government, and this site will continue to bring you the developments as the cases proceed.

The agenda is clear – stop Don Bailey, but more importantly, stop the civil rights clients he represents from having the courage to expose and oppose public corruption, and it is our goal to help shine the light that needs to be shone on the courts, and their efforts to keep the people from uncovering public corruption.  This will be your site for the truth, and we hope the Courts, including the court of public opinion, will be the site for the justice.

Update: since this was originally posted, a federal lawsuit has been filed by Bailey and 25 of his clients.  The link to the suit is available here, and will be updated.

Leave a comment

Share