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 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 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.
Dateline: Harrisburg Pennsylvania, September 27, 2012
A group of registered voters comprised of registered Democrats, Republicans and Independents filed suit today in federal district court naming Tom Corbett and House Majority Leader Rep. Michael Turzai as defendants.
The suit alleges that Corbett and Turzai conspired with Republican operatives across the country to violate the rights of registered voters who seek to elect Barack Obama. The suit further alleges that Turzai publicly admitted that the goal and purpose of the two named defendants was to deny the rights of the poor, the elderly, and blacks using state power to skewer the election in Romney’s favor.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit charged that their federal constitutional rights to work together and cooperate in an effort to elect Obama is being violated by Corbett and Turzai who are using the power of the state to unlawfully interfere with their First Amendment rights.
The lawsuit also raises concerns about creating a national registry of citizens that can be abused by national and state governments akin to allowing the government to spy on people and determine their political beliefs and affiliations.
For follow-up information contact Don Bailey at 717-221-9500 or http://www.donbaileylaw.com.
In a two-hour “hearing” this morning, Steven Conklin once again had his requests to be heard denied, and had U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Mary France lift the automatic stay of the eviction proceedings in light of the filing by Conklin that stayed the eviction that was scheduled for January 23, 2012. Judge France also lifted any stay that was effected by the filing of Andy Ostrowski, and the lease he has with Conklin for Satori Farm, but recognized that the lease gave Ostrowski a possessory interest in the property for which separate state court proceedings would need to be initiated.
The theme of the “hearing” was again, “where is the due process?” Indeed, it was not a “hearing” at all, as that term is understood in a court of law, i.e., the orderly presentation of witness testimony and documentary evidence in accordance with the Rules of Evidence.
Ostrowski strenuously asserted that this is all he was requesting, and was prepared to proceed at all times, and he resisted Judge France’s and the attorney for Grenen Brisic’s efforts to extract information without being sworn in as a witness, and allowed to present evidence and cross examine witnesses on his own. This is requesting nothing at all, and Ostrowski only further requested two additional weeks in which to properly prepare. Judge France had no choice but to acknowledged that is the proper procedure, but granted no additional time.
Conklin outlined the history of abuse to which he has been subjected through the courts, and even pointed out to Judge France that until he mentioned the name of Don Bailey in a proceeding in 2004, he was on a track set by her, after recognizing the “bizarre” and “collusive” actions to which he had been subjected, for a due process hearing on the simple issues he has continued to raise. Within weeks, Judge France brought Conklin in, said she had “made a mistake”, and dismissed Conklin from bankruptcy court in 2004, and gave the green light for all of the proceeding through the present.
The matter today was complicated by the fact that the associate attorney for Grenen and Birsic, Beth L. Slaby, who had signed the subject motions, was participating by telephone because, as she alleged, she could not be there today, and could not properly introduce evidence over the telephone. Oddly, however, Slaby, who is in Pittsburgh, represented that she could have a certified copy of a deed delivered to the Court in 15 minutes from the York County Courthouse. Judge France obviated any additional effort by the bank’s attorneys by accepting a facsimile copy of a deed that was never introduced into evidence and subjected to cross examination.
Conklin pointed out that the document, a “Sheriff’s Deed”, showing that the York County Sheriff sold the property to the bank, EMC Mortgage, said right on it that it’s contents needed to be separately verified. Of course, this is the sheriff’s sale that occurred, and was the legal taking of Conklin’s property without due process of law, with the physical ejectment of Conklin and his family from the farm, to surely be forthcoming soon, and likely in the works already. Conklin still has never been given a hearing, and is again out of court.
Conklin even pointed out that the York County Sheriff, and supposedly many other officials in York County, have not just never filed their oaths of office, but have specifically refused to do so, despite the fact that is their clear duty under the law, and it is the contract that binds them to their constitutional duties. Judge France was quickly dismissive of the issue, and, after resisting the efforts and avoiding the requests of Conklin and Ostrowski, ultimately just gave Slaby annd EMC what they were asking for, leaving again the Ostowski lease as a matter for state court.
We will bring you the transcripts of the proceedings, and reserve any detailed characterization of them until then. The transcripts will show that the failure, again, is one of the courts’.
Thanks again go out to the 20 or so members of the occupy movement and PCRLN who once again showed their support for Steve Conklin and his family, and attended the proceedings. Again there are issues of fairness and justice that underlay all of these efforts, and are the real reason that relative strangers to each other stand in support of each other in opposition to the violation of their rights. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said “an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
For quite some time, we have wrestled with the use of apparent hyperbole, trying to exercise restraint, in trying to describe to you the essence of the problem we are dealing with in this site, but there simply is no more question that we are dealing with corrupt courts, as that term is defined by Webster’s. Our crony capitalism/courthouse corruption article discussed one perception of the real nature of the dis-ease and discomfort underlying the occupy movement, that being “fairness”, and how it made complete sense to look at the cronyism practices in the courts, as the system for the administration of fairness, in that evaluation, even if it means upsetting common beliefs held by all of us concerning the faith we want to have in our courts.
We have sufficiently defined the problem, and given repeated examples of what the courts are doing, and we no longer apologize for using the term corruption to define courts in central Pennsylvania, particularly the federal court in Harrisburg, except, again, to the extent that we have to state this tragic truth.
As we alerted you in our last update on the Conklin case, bankruptcies filed by Conklin and Andy Ostrowski put off the lawless eviction once again, and the matter is being dealt with promptly by the bankruptcy court, in the federal building here in Harrisburg. Predictably, the bank and their attorneys from the Pittsburgh law firm of Grenen & Birsic have made an emergency filing with the court, and are seeking to have the bankruptcy stay lifted, and Conklin and Ostrowski both sanctioned for the filing. Yes, the firm that relies upon “robo-signers” to create fraudulent documents and lawyers who openly lie in court, are asking that Conklin and Ostrowski be punished for their bad faith conduct. We will bring you the update from the hearing, which is scheduled for January 31, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. in the bankruptcy court, Third Floor, Federal Building at Third and Walnut Streets in Harrisburg.
Steve Conklin has sent out a plea for help, a copy of which has been sent to us. Steve has truly been abused by the courts, both in his own right, and due to his association with attorney Don Bailey, and we are bringing to you his own words that underlay his plea for help. We have made a call out to Senators Casey and Toomey for assistance, but, to this point, there is no evidence that it has been heard, and we will be stepping-up our political efforts to make court reform a priority, but for now we bring you Steve Conklin’s plea for help in his own words, and ask that you help in any way you can:
From: Satori Farm Info [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 11:58 AM
Subject: Please Help!
My name is Stephen Conklin; I am the owner of SatoriFarm, located at 100 Spangler Road, Lewisberry, Pa. 17339. We have been and continue to be subject to an unlawful eviction, by force (last monday the Sheriff’s Department had at least seven cars with 2-3 deputies each, plus others ready to swoop down on us).
I was only able to stop this at the last moment by filing Bankruptcy. There is “expedited hearing” seeking to immediately vacate the automatic stay, plus prospective bar to keep me from filing anymore, plus request for sanctions, set for Tuesday, January 31, 2012 @ 9:30am, in Judge Mary France’s Courtroom, 3rd floor, of the Federal Courthouse in Harrisburg.
Occupy Harrisburg, York, Lancaster and Carlisle as well as other have come out to support us. They were here last Monday, as well as a previous attempt on December 8th, 2011. The Monday event was streamed live world-wide. We have been featured in the Patriot News, the York Dispatch, Fox43 News, as well as 2 4 hour segments of local york Comcast Tv Joe live, and on radio shows such as Dr. Robin Falkov, and Paleo-Radio.
Throughout the courts, I have never received a full, fair and impartial hearing in front of a fair and impartial tribunal. (Even a cursory review of the record would literally shock the conscience)
I have never been allowed discovery even by motion to compel (the bank’s attorney’s even put in writing they would never submit to it)
i have been denied subpoena’s )the other side didn’t even have to appear to have it quashed – it was already decided prior to.
A protection order was issued- and further denial to obtain any additional subpoena’s without court permission, first. (never gonna happen)
I have been attacked by a sheriff’s deputy who put his hand firmly on my collarbone and his other on his holster, and told to sit down and shut up, for merely saying “Your Honor” , meanwhile having a host of things decided against me. (january 27, 2009) This was done again (February 18, 2009) prior to the “hearing” even starting, where the sheriff’s deputy does the exact same thing only this time saying, “you are going to remain quiet, aren’t you Mr. Conklin?”. The County admits doing this, but says I was “disruptive”, however, at least five affidavits from witnesses, including 2 attorneys, clearly states, at no time was I anything but polite and courteous.
I have been labeled in a false light, by Federal Judge Kane, who sua sponte who struck pertinent portions of my federal complaint (1:10-cv-2501) stating it all was “immaterial, impertinent and scandalous” where, inter alia, I was asking for a federal investigation; and, she struck a motion for recusal in its entirety – she goes on to recuse herself so I can’t claim retaliation, but then labels me with having a “longstanding and outrageous pattern of hostility towards the court and its judicial officers” this is simply not true and I asked for a hearing on it to present evidence. No response.
Since then, both myself and my brother have been followed by federal marshals each time we would go to the courthouse to file routine papers, even into the bathroom, culminating on Sept 28, 2011, where the marshal who followed me was on his radio asking if he had to stay with me and then proceeded to say I was on a “list” downstairs. I could not find out what this “list” was, but I have to assume I am perceived, albeit erroneously, as some kind of threat, I have been attacked, by a tipstaff of commonwealth court, threatened with arrest, whilst I was giving testimony on the stand on behalf of someone else – again.. witness affidavits and even the transcripts show I was doing absolutely nothing wrong.
I have had default judgments entered (at least twice) that were facially-defective – I wasn’t even given the amount of time under the rules to respond.
I have had refused, a default judgment after it was stamped in, that was not defective, and was later told they would not enter it, but they couldn’t tell me why. when pressed about it, they said it was because it would have ended the case in my favor.
I have had a judge (Maria Musti Cook, of York, admit that in response to my preliminary objections, that the bank failed to answer the merits of my claims, but go on to say, I can present them at time of trial.. I never got the trial (by the same judge) or even a hearing.
I have had several instances of judges out of York, who were defendants in my federal complaint, continue to rule against me, even reach into other cases and rule, despite the clear impropriety of it and the fact I asked for their recusal.
I was even refused a timely filing of appeal (October 12, 2011) that forced me to write a writ of mandamus, as well as a petition for allowance of appeal, nunc pro tunc, afore they were forced by Superior Court to take it.
I have had numerous instances of filings never served on me, prior to be ruled upon quickly, including one where an attorney who had never appeared, or filed anything previously, had a judge (Renn) of York court, sign an order (12/11/08) BEFORE it was ever filed with the prothonotary, and, despite my having checked the dockets 3 times (12/12/08, 12/18/08, 12/22/08) suddenly on 12/23/08 I receive the order already granting something I never had a chance to respond to (they salted the files, and this too has happened a few times – I had long been forced to get certified copies of the dockets whenever I could because of this)
I have had judges have hearings that I had no notice of.
I have had judges have hearings where i got wind of, and found that the atty.s hadn’t even filed anything in the record to have the hearing on.
I have had time stamped filings of my own, vanish.
I have had an attorney for the other side and the solicitor for the prothonotary openly conspire in front of myself and my brother, (in the elevator) how they could fix it – subsequently they got a hearing I had no notice of and a pleading I had filed before this disappeared from the record.
(all this and more, as i am only brushing what has happened- the list goes on and on)
On December 7, 2010, I filed a federal complaint under Section 1983 (1:10-cv-2501) This went through 3 judges, (Kane, Rambo, Mariani) the last one being appointed by “verbal order”. Judge Mariaini initially granted 2 TRO’s , each of 2 week duration (December 7, 2011, and January 4, 2012, respectively) but i never got a hearing on the request for preliminary injunctive relief (not getting a hearing has been a re-occurring theme throughout) Judge Mariani was only appointed to the bench on November 10, 2011 and has never been a judge prior to this (labor lawyer) – he is a long time supporter of Senator Bob Casey and in return, got to be a judge. I believe I am being singled out.
On or about January 17, 2012 Judge Mariani denied additional relief and dismissed the judicial, bank and law firm that represents them defendants – citing- lack of jurisdiction (Anti-injunction act) and Rooker-Feldman. He did this despite the fact that Section 1983 is an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act (Mitchum v. Foster) and the fact when i filed, there was state action pending) Additionally, he fails to take into account Hovey v. Elliott, and its progeny, as well as a host of other Supreme court cases, cited, which provides for my substantive right and the fact I have never received a real hearing.
He relied on a report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Blewitt, who cited a bevy of cases, some saying they were directly on point, as to why relief should not be granted. I researched many of these cases, and none of them (none) were anywhere near my case. I pointed this out, to no avail. What all of those cases did have in common however, was the fact that they all…. got a hearing; no matter what I do, I cannot. (Looking at Fed Rule 52, and 65, and case law to go with it, everyone else seems to get a hearing – and certainly the cases cited against me, they all got one too)
As to the foreclosure complaint – I have indubitable evidence by way of 2 expert affidavits, from nationally-recognized fraud Expert, Lynn Szymoniak, Esquire, attesting to, amongst other things, the blatant fraud of the “manufactured assignments”, done by “robo-signers” and other highly improper irregularities. (Ms. Szymoniak has trained even the FBI and others on fraud detection and was featured on April 3, 2011 segment of Sixty Minutes)
For example: Chase Bank of Texas claims on November 11, 2005 they assigned the Mortgage note to Deustche Bank of Americas (something something or other) effective June 18, 2002. This is notarized by Natalie Flowers on November 8, 2005 – three days prior to the alleged execution. Natalie Flowers (by expert affidavit) has acted as a Vice-President for several banks. This is a back-dated assignment, and whilst I cannot find case law on this for Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York and California all find that it is the date of execution and not the antecedent date that controls. Moreover, Deutsche Bank then claims it assigned the mortgage to EMC Mortgage (the folks coming after me) on October 20, 2004. But, On October 18, 2004, Chase Bank of Texas caused our home to be sold at sheriff’s sale (without a judgment- they used a docket number for a different property and attached it to a writ of execution, that should have never been issued by the prothonotary) I told them at time of that sale, it was unlawful (the then-sheriff, the county solicitor and the bank’s attorney) and why it couldn’t be sold, but they did it anyway. I got it back when I told the purchaser who came to give me notice to get out what happened, and he went back and demanded his money back. It shoiuld also be noted that the person who assigned it from Deutsche Bank, Sherry Doza, as Vice -President, by expert affidavit, has acted as V.P for literally dozens of other banks, and even her “signature” is done by numerous others, and at no time has she worked for any of them. Also, the form of Deutsche Bank being used does not exist. (in a two day period, 10/18/04-10/20/04 -4 banks claim ownership- most overlapping to the same day)
Additionally, the foreclosure complaint is verified by Rick Wilken as working for EMC. Per expert affidavit, Rick Wilken has acted as a V.P for other banks too, and at no time did he work for EMC but was and/or is employed by Lender Processing Services (formally a subsidiary of Fidelity) and every other single verification (there are several) the the bank’s attorney’s have done, (Grenen & Birsic) is clearly and unequivocally, facially-defective.
There is also, prior to sale, and still on the York county recorder of deeds docket, where a lienholder was notified of a sale of the property. He subsequently paid them . The attorneys for the bank perjured themselves by sworn affidavit that they had no knowledge of any of this, and later had to admit they are the ones that contacted him in the first place. Then they claimed the payment was no good, yet I have evidence, via cusip number which tracks negotiable instruments, that they have deposited this into a fidelity account in Boston. The judge, Stephen Linebaugh, who is/was a defendant in my federal suit, never addresses whether the payment was good or not, instead, he says that the lienholder could not obtain power of attorney to enter a satisfaction. (the payment itself though, never invalided)
I have had several judges out of the York court, who are defendants continue to rule on things.. all of it meant to harm me.
NO ONE will even mention the word fraud, or the expert affidavits, regardless of what cases in support I cite. (and there are many)
There are additional issues of race as well, which has to do with my taken the indigent in as well as bringing inner city children out to the farm during the summer to see, where eggs come from. Transcripts altered, Tape altered, 7 witness affidavits, all deposed, none refuted, that attest to what was said. A federal judge, Conner, saying I was not entitled to a verbatim transcript and in a footnote, stating (paraphrased) “Plaintiff does not claim to be a minority, so what is plaintiff’s problem with ‘little children of color’ being discriminated against on plaintiff’s property”. Tried to address this (reconsider) through my attorney (I have largely represented myself on everything else) was then attacked and me as well as he issued a show cause as to why Mr. Bailey should not be sanctioned for “grammatical errors”, even though clearly the judge made numerous errors, including case citations. this judge refused to recuse and never addressed the issue for reconsideration put in front of him. I know for a fact, race issues, a developers desire to get hold of this property as well as my association with Don Bailey, and the fact I dared speak of any of it, are exactly the reasons we are being denied wholesale, all means and manner of due process other rights.
WE desperately need help here.. some light shone.. on all that is and continues to go on…. again, I haven’t begun to get into the depth of all of it, we just need as much attention drawn to it as possible.. I have, documents to support everything I am saying here.
Please… if you could offer anything here.. even some guidance or other thoughts, it would be most appreciated.. Thank you for the time and consideration you have afforded in the foregoing; I apologize for the length and likely ramble in it.. I just did not know of another way to present it..
If so inclined, you may reach me @ (717) 458-2815, or by cell @ (717) 460-5450 (if I miss your call, please leave a message and I will return it promptly)
sincerely /s/ Stephen G. Conklin – Satorifarm
Satori Farm Expert Witness Lynn Szymoniak, esq. on 60 Minutes
Watch Lynn Szymoniak on 60 Minutes discussing Foreclosure Fraud:
View the Proof of the Fraud being commited against Satori Farm by Lynn Szymoniak:
Lynn Szymoniak’s expert witness affidavits proving fraudulent foreclosure documents are being used against Satori Farm
Satori Farm – EMC Mortgage Fraud Foreclosure Victims, with Don Bailey on Joe Live 1/14/2012:
VIDEO: Civil Rights Attorney Don Bailey (former Pennsylvania Auditor General and U.S. Congressman) with Satori Farm (EMC Foreclosure Fraud Victims) discussing Fraud, Judicial Misconduct, Racism by a Federal Judge, and Corruption in Pennsylvania Courts – Back on JoeLive (2nd episode)
Please help in any way you feel you can. We will continue to offer suggestions as to how you may.
A large part of the legacy of the Penn State/Sandusky scandal has been lost this week with the passing of legendary coach and Penn State benefactor Joe Paterno. The what he knows and when he knew its and what he should have dones are now forever academic. We posited that Paterno was, to a degree, a victim of the Penn State/Good old boys network of attorneys, politicians, and judges who have been acculturated to control and conceal institutionally damaging information. This has been discussed in the Margo Royer matter as well. All that will be further said at this point is that Pennsylvania has lost a larger-than-life man whose legacy may have been unfairly tarnished by those to whom responsible charge of the information was entrusted.
Bill Keisling of Yardbird Books has published a well-researched analysis of the Sandusky scandal in the larger context of the political use of the Office of Attorney General by Governor Tom Corbett, with detailed discussion of the primacy of the bonusgate scandal. Keisling explores in detail how Corbett dedicated untold resources to the political prosecution of legislators in comparison to the deliberately impotent effort to investigate the Sandusky allegations, and the real costs involved in both.
To the extent that Pennsylvanians feel a sense of lost dignity to accompany the loss of an institution in Pennsylvania for half a century, Keisling’s article suggests that our own Governor may bear the brunt of the blame. The entire article follows:
Attorneys take cues from the courts and seek sanctions from Bailey client
As we brought to you in our update on the Bailey class clients who have filed their own motions to open judgment, Judge A. Richard Caputo denied the motion filed by Deborah Phillis, and the opinion was immediately released into the public domain through a private research service. Caputo’s Orders in the Miles Thomas and Jeffrey Dock cases were released to the same service. Another Caputo Order conspicuously came through the same service sanctioning Bailey in the Dave and Pam Morris case, who have filed a motion to open of their own. Caputo piles on.
In accord with the serious developing theme, i.e. the Conklin case and Bailey disciplinary proceedings, none of these Bailey clients are getting due process hearings, or any procedure whatsoever.
The first attorneys to take the bait, so-to-speak, come from the Harrisburg law firm of Shumaker Williams, through attorney Michael Rowan, who has filed a Motion for Sanctions sanctions against Deb Phillis, citing a lack of any reasonable basis to her claims that she has suffered prejudice because of who her attorney is that affected her case before Judge Yvette Kane, who has recused herself from all Don Bailey cases, and initiated disciplinary proceedings of her own, which have not been discussed in any detail. Deborah has filed a reply brief, citing significantly that they have operated under an entirely false factual construct, and objecting to her mistreatment for being clearly reasonable.
The Motion for Sanctions essentially cites Phillis’ statement that she intends to do anything and everything she can to get her justice, which is not asking for anything at all. The motion for sanctions is, on its face, more punishment for daring to raise issues of bias against Don Bailey, and the civil rights causes of his clients, and simply smack of an attempt to oppress and silence an innocent American citizen for daring to raise an issue that is reasonable on its face. There are 70 votes of general support. Their reason cannot withstand that.
Mr. Rowan was kind enough to speak with us about the filing, and assured it was directed by his clients, but was equivocal in his support for such a drastic measure, citing only Ms. Phillis’ “pattern in this case” to support the motion. Pattern? In this case? Rowan also suggested that there was a proposal to resolve the matter by withdrawing the motion for sanctions in exchange for withdrawing the case. That’s the removal of the proverbial boot from the throat, but Phillis may have no choice.
Rowan did say that he was familiar with this site, but that he had not read it in any depth. He based a motion for sanctions an a filing by Deborah Phillis that specifically cited this site as support. There do appear to be questions of good faith involved, a lack of diligence at least. We discussed the fact that this is exactly what opportunist attorneys do when they read clear judicial attitudes in our struggle behind the civil rights struggle essay.
The entire tone again is set by the lengths to which some personalities, judges unfortunately, have gone to create a public “smearjob”, as Bailey has been heard to say. Judge Rambo has already threatened Jim Dewees and Vicki Smith with sanctions, and barred the door to the courthouse against them, and the dissemination of the attacks on Bailey speak for themselves. See Politics of personal destruction.
What is wrong with these American citizens asking for fair access to their courts? Why are they being subjected to mistreatment and sanction freely for suggesting they have been subjected to mistreatment and sanction? There would appear to be many opportunities for the courts to still discipline themselves and remedy what is on record here as being serious wrongs. We will continue to bring you these updates.
Bailey discipline case update
The Supreme Court has entered an Order scheduling the submission of post-hearing findings of fact and conclusions of law, tentatively believed to be due in mid-February. The process requires each side to submit “proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law” in support of their respective positions. Presumably, because the Office of Disciplinary Counsel carries the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, they will be required to make a submission making their case against Bailey. This will be based upon the hearing transcripts and exhibits submitted into the record on August 11 and 12, 2011.
Bailey, of course, has raised, once again, substantial due process issues, which have led to an infirm record to support anything, but the Supreme Court has denied his substantial and repeated pretrial motions, largely in one-line orders, despite Bailey’s pleas for due process. Every reader of this right now is in the absolute dark of the this judicial decision-making, and that simply is not fair to the large numbers of people who have significant interests at stake.
It is assumed that “they” again are attempting to back Bailey into a corner so they can see what he says about the record before the Supreme Court Disciplinary Board, most of which has been made public here, and then fashion whatever it is that they are going to do, which will likely involve more of the same. Through the disciplinary process, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court still has the opportunity to fully address the substantial issues raised by Bailey throughout these proceedings, and to do complete justice in this case, and to all of us. There are many issues to address, well before any issues concerning the “complaint” against Bailey are reached, and we are all entitled to the transparency that is inherent in the notion of due process.
As Steve Conklin, his 84 year-old father, family, and around 50 friends from PCRLN and the occupy movement waited and worked in the cold rain and snow, saving whatever remnants of Satori Farm that could be loaded on trucks and put into storage that they could, word was received, about 2:10 p.m., that bankruptcy filings made this morning had automatically stayed the eviction. No court has granted relief at this point – it is a stay as a matter of law, and is expected to be addressed promptly. We expect that Conklin will be faced with eviction again soon.
Regardless of the thrust of this article – the fact that the eviction was put off – it was a truly inspiring to participate in the effort where those in attendance were united only by their humanity and sense of fairness that lay beneath all the things we experience as Americans, indeed as world citizens. Food was brought in, labor supplied, and the entire event was webcast live around the world, with viewers as far away as Sweden, France, and Denmark, and the support streamed in, and never let up among those in attendance. After the stay was announced, one of the viewers in San Francisco ordered in a celebratory pizza, and another streamed a message around the world from viewers and listeners everywhere to call the York County Sheriff – 717-771-9601 – and demand that he stop these unlawful efforts to evict Conklin and his family from their farm.
The mantra during the event was fairly simple – how can they take a man’s property without giving him a hearing? That is the basis of the entire effort – the sheriff, i.e., “the state”, is trying to take Conklin’s property without due process of law. We have discussed that basic concept very liberally here. The Supreme Court case is Hovey v. Elliot, 167 U.S. 409 (1897), and it states, in clear language, the following:
The fundamental conception of a court of justice is condemnation only after hearing. To say that courts have inherent power to deny all right to defend an action and to render decrees without any hearing whatever is, in the very nature of things, to convert the court exercising such an authority into an instrument of wrong and oppression, and hence to strip it of that attribute of justice upon which the exercise of judicial power necessarily depends.
The principle stated in this terse language lies at the foundation of all well-ordered systems of jurisprudence. Wherever one is assailed in his person or his property, there he may defend, for the liability and the right are inseparable. This is a principle of natural justice, recognized as such by the common intelligence and conscience of all nations. A sentence of a court pronounced against a party without hearing him, or giving him an opportunity to be heard, is not a judicial determination of his rights, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal.
Conklin has never had a hearing, and that is not in dispute. Judge Mariani did not even mention Hovey in dismissing Conklin’s case, despite the fact that Conklin quoted it to him too, repeatedly. The language is clear. By all right under the law, Conklin is the fee owner of that 112 acres known as Satori Farm. Our Supreme Court says so.
That is the principle that underlay the bankruptcy filings that effected the stay of the action. Conklin filed a bankruptcy of his own this morning in the bankruptcy court the federal building in Harrisburg. At some point, Conklin had also granted a lease of his property to Andy Ostrowski, who had represented Conklin in the past in the York County Courts in connection with these matters, and Ostrowski also filed a personal bankruptcy this morning, and delivered notice to the Sheriff of the filing.
It is not clear which filing stopped the action, and is presumed that both should have, but the right result has been achieved, and further actions will be forthcoming. Grenen and Birsic, in their haste to shut down Satori Farm, did not attempt to identify if there were any other interests in the land that they sought to take, and Steve Conklin by all right remains the owner in fee.
In the end, what happened at 2:15 p.m. today is only what must happen by operation of law, and is no sign that there is any real standing down in the efforts to get Satori Farm – we will provide you with the updates in these regards. For the time-being, the matter appears to be one for the bankruptcy court, which will likely entertain motions for relief from the stay.
Even if “they” were successful in carrying out their lawless plan, the message from today would still be a positive one. The course of conduct of these official, banks, and attorneys never suggested anything but its continuation, but the outpouring of support for Steve and his family has a life of its own, because of what unites it. Conklin was heard to say that taking him away by whatever means they intended to would only strengthen his voice, and it was shown today that Steve’s voice, and his principles, are what unite people around the world, regardless of political governance.
The rights stated in our Constitution – freedom to speak and to oppose, due process of law, equal protection, etc. – are not our rights because they were given to us, they are our rights because they are “inherent and inalienable”, i.e., they lie at the heart of our humanity. Unfortunately, the understanding of this concept only truly comes when it is “your” rights that are those being taken, and the support that Steve received shows that this is something that is capable of being understood without being experienced. The support alone is a victory.
As the old adage goes, you can take the Steve out of Satori Farm, but you can’t take the Satori Farm out of Steve. Steve’s personal mantra is that he will be heard, and today he was heard around the world, and has introduced the world to Satori Farm. The experience shows that there are things that unite and inspire in the face of lawlessness and oppression, and those things live for themselves.
The courts are supposed to protect all of it, and they aren’t. Why?
In our Constitutional Law 101 article, we referenced the very simple analysis by which United States District Judge Robert D. Mariani could only reach one conclusion, a conclusion that most of us were first introduced to by the third grade – that in America, property cannot be taken without due process of law, which means a fair and impartial hearing before a fair and impartial tribunal. Steve Conklin had neither, not even an unfair hearing in a partial tribunal – he had none whatsoever, and his property is scheduled to be taken away, by force, Monday, January 23, 2012. The Supreme Court of the United States in a case called Hovey v. Elliot, 167 U.S. 409 (1897) instructs that this will be a lawless act. The new federal judge, and 30 year union attorney, is condoning and fomenting lawlessness by rogue state officials. This is the only conclusion that can rationally be reached under the law.
We talked in prior posts of the skepticism with which we viewed Mariani’s eleventh hour grant of the second TRO on January 4, 2012, and the expressed skepticism was the most favorable spin we could put on the move, as there were clear signs that Mariani, a federal judge for all of 2 months, was already involved, whether he knew it or not, as outlined in Conklin’s motion to recuse, in activities that we applied another “F” word to, but this one wasn’t Fail. Judge Mariani did indeed fail his first real test as a judge, but has passed with flying colors in serving the other agenda that we have set forth.
This brand new federal judge (61 years old) has now created a situation where a swarm of sheriff’s deputies from York County with their State Police backup will descend upon Satori Farm and remove this peace-loving family by force. Welcome to the bench Judge Mariani, you made the banks proud. Did you take an oath to uphold the constitution or make a pact to serve another master? You just made America even less free, and proved that the judiciary is not only not capable of disciplining itself, but is at the heart of the problem.
We will be continuing efforts to assemble and peaceably protest and oppose the actions of what is, by definition, a lawless event scheduled to occur in York County on January 23, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.. We will keep you posted of our efforts.
This post represents only the views of its author, and is in the nature of a New Years’ prognostication for 2012, with certain implications on themes that have been discussed on this site. It was not offered sooner because of the urgency of the Conklin matters, which have been reported about, and will continue to be followed.
The prediction, as suggested in the title, is that Jerry Sandusky, and the two other fellows – Tim Curley, Athletic Director, and Gary Schultz, head of campus police – will make plea agreements to end their cases, and that there will never be another evidentiary hearing or trial related to these matters. Sandusky can already be convicted on the testimony of McQueary, a couple victims, and Sandusky’s odd public statements – the Costas one alone sealed that fate, and the New York Times one is further relevant for these and other purposes. Although the charges have not been studied, it is likely that the charges against Curley and Schultz have room for appropriate reduction in the plea bargain process, and that neither of them would face jail time – Barry Bonds recently avoided jail time, and he went to trial. Sandusky will likely have to do some time in jail, but there would appear to be no direct benefit to any of them to take a trial, and huge downsides on many levels – Paterno testifying, Spanier testifying, Courtney testifying, victims being further subjected to the process etc, etc, etc. There are huge motives on all sides, including Corbett’s, for these matters to be resolved quietly, and that is the prediction – pleas 3 – trials 0.
The prediction is made with the further admittedly aggressive suggestion that the foregoing is, or will be, an engineered result. Call it a “conspiracy theory” if you must, it certainly would involve one, or call it an effort to urge a look at this case that will do complete justice, but there are themes that have already been discussed generally and specifically herein, including our Penn State/Good old boy’s network article, that are suggested by the circumstances, and, whether or not the prediction proves correct, will continue to be developed. The prediction is just an opinion, of course, the questions that give rise to it are these:
How and Why was the existence of the grand jury proceeding leaked to the Patriot News in March 2011?
Did whoever leak it know that “victims” may go out and “lawyer-up”, as they say, to seek civil suits for damages?
Did they know that financial motives affect testifying victims’ credibility?
Did they know that some people with financial motives may actually try to concoct stories?
Why did they not know of these other victims through the “investigation”?
How and why did the grand jury indictment wind up in the Patriot News?
How does Marty Carlson get next-day, state-wide coverage of slanderous accusations about Bailey?
Why doesn’t Bailey get access for his response?
Why put Bailey’s picture in the Patriot with an eye-patch he wore for a couple weeks a few years ago when he was having a health problem?
Does the Patriot News have some kind of access to the courts, or vise versa?
What kind of media access do prosecutors and former prosecutors have?
Why don’t we ever hear more about other grand jury proceedings?
How often and when are they used?
Why would Sandusky’s attorney allow him to go on national television and answer questions about his sexual attraction to young boys?
Did anybody who is involved in these cases have any interest in Sandusky doing national media appearances, without knowing what he was going to say?
Do they know those statements can be introduced against him at trial?
Why was the grand jury apparently suspended during the Corbett gubernatorial campaign?
Do they realize the names that will be on the witness lists for these trials?
Did any of them contribute to Corbett?
Do they know that Harrisburg will be a media circus for weeks, and Penn State under the spotlight of international attention?
Why was the Sandusky preliminary hearing, which he allegedly decided to waive on the morning it was scheduled, held in Bellefonte, while the others, where there was testimony, were held in Harrisburg?
Why is the new attorney general already not running for re-election?
The questions could continue, and may continue as they arise. Of course, the answers to all of these questions are not within the power of any private citizen, save Patriot News editors, as to parts, to answer, but they all are reasonable. They suggest themes that we will continue to develop, and as they develop, maybe those questions will be answered. We have no interest or preference, incidentally, in the matter of pleas or trials, only that justice be done, that no one else gets hurt, and that all the proper people be brought to justice.
Once again, due to the prolific efforts of Steve Conklin, and his network of supporters, which is believed to include well over 100 American citizens reading this site, and the coverage of the Satori Farm saga on other sites as well, primarily through occupyharrisburg.org and judicial-corruption.net, who wrote and called Judge Mariani to ask him to stop the paramilitary eviction of Steve and his family, which has again been put off by a Temporary Restraining Order entered by Judge Mariani sometime last evening. A copy of the TRO followed by Steve’s motion follow:
It is important for our mission that our readers do their best to read and understand the actual court filings and court orders and opinion that are attached, as providing the true context for every point made herein, and as a check on the bias on this site. Again, we think that the bias is supported by the facts, but respect the intellectual process of our readers to reach their own conclusions.
The “skepticism” expressed here is more ours than Conklin’s at this point because the delay in deciding this matter, and the entry of the Order on a temporary basis, despite the clear factual and legal claims that Conklin has placed before the Court – he did not have a hearing, and that is not in dispute – suggests some reluctance of Mariani to simply step in, be the Judge he was just appointed to be, and to eschew the influences of Judges like Judge Rambo, who had dumped the matter on Mariani after delivering another harsh parting shot apparently hoping to make quick work of Conklin, and the influences that banks and their lawyers have on the Courts. Conklin still stands to have his property taken without due process of law, and it takes even less than the 9th grade education Steve told the Judge is all he has to understand that taking life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, violates the United States Constitution. Accordingly, any Order of Judge Mariani short of finding his Constitutional rights being violated, and demanding that Conklin be given a hearing must be met with skepticism.
The reason for the skepticism, in addition to the Judge not acting on the several motions that Conklin filed and remain on his docket, and sitting and literally waiting until the very last minute – the stress Steve and his poor 84 year old father must have been incredible – is now his denial of Steve’s right to address the preliminary magistrate report that is before Mariani as well as the short-shrift to his motion for recusal and reassignment of this case outside of this judicial circuit.
Again as we brought to you in our December 6, 2011 Call To Action post, Steve filed a Motion for Recusal seeking the reassignment of this matter both away from this Judge, and outside this judicial circuit altogether because of the bias, prejudice, and abject abuse that he has suffered at the hands of the state and federal courts, both because he dared to expect that he would be permitted to exercise his rights in those courts, and because of his relationship with Don Bailey. Conklin and Bailey have a long and loyal relationship with each other in dealing with the Courts, and it was Conklin’s case, where Steve raised concerns of Judge Conner’s racist tendencies, that has contributed significantly to everything reported here. The motion for recusal and one line order follow:
The fact that there is a one-line Order from that multi-page detailed Motion is cause for skepticism itself. Crony capitalists and corrupt courts work best when there is no transparency. We do not suggest that Judge Mariani is dishonest. We express skepticism, and note that Steve has treated Judge Mariani with the utmost respect and kindness, and , above all, hope. We hope that Judge Mariani takes this time to study all of the issues that Steve has put before him, and to do the people justice. Again, the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Steve placed before Mariani are as follows:
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
Defendants EMC, et. al., by and through its attorneys, Defendants Grenen & Birsic, et. al., have filed actions, as Plaintiffs in the Defendant York County Court of Common Pleas, as docketed under 2006-SU-0433-Y06 and 2009-SU-5228-04, respectively.
Plaintiff Stephen G. Conklin, as a defendant in those actions, answered the respective complaints lodged against him, and denied all of the material factual allegations against him, and demanded strict proof of the same.
Plaintiff, Stephen G. Conklin has not defaulted on the Complaints filed against him.
Plaintiff, Stephen G. Conklin has not admitted the allegations levied against him.
Plaintiff, Stephen G. Conklin has never been provided an evidentiary hearing by the Defendant Court of Common Pleas of York County.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter in accordance with Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972) which holds that actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act.
Plaintiff, as a defendant in actions seeking to separate him from his property, has an absolute right to a hearing under the Fourteenth Amendment, absent a default, or admission.
Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process of law has been denied.
Plaintiff has established a reasonable probability of success on the merits and his right to relief is clear.
Plaintiff will suffer immediate and irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, and defendants will suffer no harm if it is denied.
On these simple facts, there would appear to be no reason for keeping this case in this perpetual state of urgency. Judge Mariani has already had 30 days from the first TRO to address these issues, and the fact that Steve was forced to file another motion for TRO, and then to have to write the impassioned plea to Judge Mariani to act would also reasonably be cause for skepticism.
Regardless of our skepticism, we do want to send out our greatest appreciation on behalf of the PCRLN for all of your attention and your efforts. As set forth in our January 3, 2012 Call For Action post, these public efforts are not only at the core of our constitutional rights, but they serve a very practical and useful purpose in proceedings of this nature, and we believe that it was these efforts, and the letter of Steve Conklin, together with his diligent legal efforts, that are to thank for Steve’s father to have a few more reasonably peaceful nights of sleep on Satori Farm – until the firestorm that Mariani threw a blanket over flares up again.
The best, and perhaps only, check on the abuse of government power is the power of the unified voice of the people, and we thank you for making all of our voices heard by Judge Mariani.
We will continue to meet, plan, and strategize as to how we can work together to save Satori Farm, and protect all of our Constitutional rights, and will continue to bring you updates, as well as focus on all the efforts underway on this site.
Working to provide equal justice under the law in Pennsylvania