Category Archives: The Don Bailey and clients federal lawsuit and disciplinary case

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 case updates – clients continue to be mistreated on motions to open

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.

We will keep you updated on these efforts.

Thank you.

UPDATE:Rambo leads flurry of recusals, reassignments, and responses to Bailey clients’ motions to open judgment

The first official reply to the motions to open judgment as referenced in our November 5, 2011 post came from her Honor Sylvia Rambo, Senior District Judge in Harrisburg, and alleged by Bailey to be one of the original participants in the plan to “get Bailey”.  Judge Rambo was the presiding Judge in the Vickie Smith/Central Dauphin and James Dewees (Deputy Dauphin County Prison Warden)/Dominick Derose (DCP Warden) cases.  The allegations in the motions were, of course, similar, because they are based on the information that has come to light through the Bailey disciplinary proceedings, which have shown what Bailey has been saying for years.  As Dewees put it “I always took what Don told me throughout my case about the agenda to get him with a grain of salt, and thought that justice just failed me in my case, but now I realize that what Don said all along has been right.”  That is the agenda that has been reported, and uncontested, here or in the courts.  Please, if you have not, review the transcripts of the disciplinary proceedings.

Judge Rambo did not wait for any response to the motions, a denial of procedural rights, and made no references to the cases and facts cited by Smith and Dewees in the motions, but instead, in a threatening fashion, labeled the motions “frivolous”, and addressed them in an accusatory fashion as to how they were prepared, again without a word of denial on her part that the basis for the motions was factually incorrect.  Interestingly, Rambo herself recognized the commonality of the interests of Smith and Dewees by placing her Order in a combined caption of both cases.  While similar, these were motions of two unrelated litigants in two unrelated cases at two unrelated times on her docket.  The combination of these cases by the Court itself suggests that there is a very easily identifiable “class” of persons who have been and continue to be affected by all of these things.  Smith and Dewees have gone on record jointly in response to Judge Rambo’s threatening Order, and have demanded that their cases be removed from the Third Judicial Circuit in its entirety, and that the merits be addressed.  A copy of the Motion for Reconsideration, as well as Judge Rambo’s Order, follows:

Dewees.Smith Motion Reconsideration Rambo

Order Dewees.VSmith

Also, Don Bailey has gone on record in these matters on both the Smith and Dewees dockets, with a personal letter to Judge Rambo, responding to some vague suggestions that he was involved in filing the motions – it would not have been improper if he was – they were/are his clients after all.  The Bailey letter follows:

Rambo letter nov 16 2011

In other developments, an additional motion to open has been filed, and still more are expected to be filed, bringing the number to more than a dozen cases of clients and former clients of Don Bailey and Andy Ostrowski who have seen that their rights have been violated by the course of conduct that we have been reporting, and discussing in the broader context of needed reform.  We will provide you more information on all of these individual cases in an update to our original post on these unprecedented matters.  In six of those cases, other than Smith and Dewees, Judges Kane, Conner, and Jones have recused and/or reassigned the motions.  One of the motions has gone to Senior Judge Caldwell, two to Senior Judge Caputo, and three to newly appointed Judge Mariani.  Mariani has also recently received the Steve Conklin case from Rambo.  Little is known about Mariani, but much is to be learned.

Also, attorneys for defendants in the underlying cases have begun to appear on the record and file briefs in response to some of the motions.  None of these briefs at this point appear to address the merits of the motions, and the relevant case law that is clear in the motions, and none appear to have taken on the central question of whether there was a bias and prejudice that affected the Bailey clients’ access to justice.  As we discussed in the “struggle within a struggle” post, and will continue to develop, attorneys who practice before these judges, and judges who have easily discernible predilections toward some attorney or others, read these things, and are the direct beneficiaries of the judges’ tendencies to serve that bigger agenda.  These attorneys win cases that they shouldn’t win, or should be settling, and they are able to pad bills through increased and exaggerated docket activity, knowing that the more motions they filed, the more they get paid, and the more chance that the Judge would find reason to make an attack on Bailey, and dismiss a case, or award a sanction, or do something to make it look like these lawyers are lawyering, when all they are doing is taking what is being given them.  We will prove to you that there are attorneys who have made a practice of doing exactly this.  They, too, must realize that there is a class if litigant – Bailey clients – who they also are harming by participating in thsuch a course of conduct.  Rambo has, of course, brought those defense attorneys into these things together as well as a class.

The John and Jane Does have never been identified.

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,, and, 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


Harrisburg federal courthouse issues reach new lows as they go after PA attorney who is exposing public corruption

Please be advised that the disciplinary hearings for Attorney Don Bailey will proceed on August 11 and 12, 2011, beginning at 9 a.m. in the Judicial Center on Commonwealth Avenue, Harrisburg Pennsylvania.   We are asking as many of you that can to please show up for those hearings.  Furthermore, Don is in the process of filing a federal civil rights lawsuit where he and at least 20 of his clients at this point are suing these federal judges and others related to the state and federal courts and disciplinary system.

At this point, it appears that there is a fix that is in the state disciplinary process, and we do not say that lightly.  Don’s most recent request for a continuance has been denied, and virtually all of the subpoenas that have been served to prove his allegations have been quashed – he is being completely deprived of all due process.  Our view of this is that they know that it is just Don against them, and even though Don is and has always been 100% blameless, as long as it is just Don, they can prevail and control the outcome and aftermath, because it’s all kept within the courts and its discipline system.

We believe the strength of everything here depends on people outside the system who have been hurt (Don’s clients and Attorney Ostrowski’s clients)  being involved actively in this effort.

The Unites States Senators for Pennsylvania, Toomey and Casey, are ultimately in control of this, and they know what is going on, and they must be made to know that this will become a political issue outside of the courts, and that they will have to answer for this.  They have already been specifically advised of all of this.  The evidence is increasingly clear that there is a corruption problem in the federal court here in Harrisburg, and until we can shift the balance of power, it is politically easier to sacrifice Don on the altar and to protect the individual judges.

We believe you are all aware of the impeachment sites for Judges Kane, Conner, and Jones, and/or have had your personal experiences with them and been harmed by them.  Again, it is much, much easier to get rid of Don than to admit and address a corruption problem in the courts, and public assistance and attention to this effort is critical.  Please do what you can, and show up on August 11 and 12.  We are attempting to have this organized as a protest outside the courthouse if we can get enough participants.  Regardless, any support you can provide would be helpful.

And for those who don’t know who Don Bailey is, it’s time to learn.  Don is one of our last true defenders of freedom and the Constitutional law that protects us from the abusive court system.  You can learn more about Don’s heroics at and from WikiPedia at