Category Archives: Pleadings in Don Bailey federal suit/disciplinary proceeding

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

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.