Bailey Challenges Supreme Court over Due Process Violations in Response to Recommended Suspension
The initial coverage on this site centered on the disciplinary proceedings filed against civil rights lawyer Don Bailey in early 2011. From the start, we have contended that the Bailey disciplinary proceedings would show the need for court reform through the difficulties that American citizens were having in bringing their claims for the violations of their individual constitutional rights in the courts. This is what has been shown, and the need for reform remains clear.
On May 1, 2013, the Supreme Court Disciplinary Board, as we predicted, recommended that Don Bailey be suspended from the practice of law for 5 years for doing nothing other than criticizing judges for not being fair, and, on June 7, 2013, Don Bailey filed a response demonstrating clearly both 1) that he was right in so-criticizing, and 2) that, as we have covered at length here, the proceedings against him, because they had a bogus origin and were designed to serve an illicit agenda, were bereft of the most basic due process protections.
Continue Reading ›› … Read More
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 … Continue Reading ››
… Read More
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
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.
(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 … Continue Reading ››
… Read More