Category Archives: Uncategorized

Lawless America filming in Pennsylvania a tremendous success – Bailey hearing postponed for 30 days – public support requested

Bill Windsor is a man with incredible courage, and even more incredible energy.  Fueled by coca cola and pepperoni pizza, Bill allowed 35 Pennsylvanians to tell him their stories on film on his visit to Harrisburg and Pittsburgh.  Among those in Harrisburg were about 20 of Don Bailey’s clients and former clients, and Don Bailey himself, with Don’s clients bestowing the kindest of words on the efforts of Don over the years to help them protect their constitutional rights in the face of the abuses of government officials across all spectra.  The respect and appreciation that Bill showed to Don, and the attention he gave to Don’s saga, was greatly appreciated, and provides a focus to the larger issues that we have been addressing on this site that cannot always be told through the eyes of each individual victim.

Bill’s energy is amazing, and his manner with those telling their stories is caring and compassionate.  Every person being filmed was given a fair chance to tell their stories from their perspective as they wanted it to be told, which often does not happen in our justice system, and Bill was accommodating of all of them, and gave them all a fair opportunity to present their views.  It is a courageous thing that he is doing, and he is continuing to overcome obstacles along the way, but it is an effort that we will continue to stand behind and support in any way.

Bill did receive some local “mainstream” coverage in the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, where, of course, the sting of “judicial corruption” has been felt strongly, and is something the public understands (though attention on it has conspicuously and quickly faded).  In Harrisburg, all of the major local media outlets were notified of the filming, and Bill’s Lawless America-emblazoned vehicle was parked prominently in the street all weekend; yet there was no interest whatsoever by the local media in covering the story.

As has been addressed generally on this site, the media may be as responsible as the courts and lawyers for the diminished quality of justice in America, and the fact that the local media in Penn State/Sandusky country made no appearance or no inquiry at the office of the most prominent civil rights lawyer in the area, who has sued Penn State, for such a unique event, to tell the stories of so many central Pennsylvanians, about so much government misconduct, alone speaks volumes to that issue, and more will be spoken.

Regardless, it was a rewarding and worthwhile experience, and Bill is only picking up momentum, as his site updates continue to tell of tremendous interest in his efforts, and in participating in getting these stories out.  Not a single person who is telling their stories is getting paid, and not one of them is winning their case or getting anything of value out of their participation in these efforts, other than the satisfaction of participating in the effort itself, i.e., doing their duty as American citizens.  It remains our contention that these stores are so hard to tell, and to garner support for, and shed light on, because they often cannot be understood unless, unfortunately, they are experienced.  The shared experience, the cornerstone of Bill’s effort, is the only way that they can be made to be understood by those who hopefully will not have to experience them personally, and that is the cornerstone of our effort as well.

While bill did allow 35 individuals to tell their stories, and did not cut anyone off or send anyone away, there are many more stories that could have been told, and will continue to be told, through Lawless America, this site, and other sites.  In previous articles related to the Lawless America effort, we outlined the essential nature of the project, i.e., an individual testimony to Congress, and provided general instructions and examples to help anyone who is interested to prepare a script of their own.  You can continue to do so, and submit them to Andy Ostrowski at, or submit them through the site.  We hope to continue to provide a place where these stories can be told, and to assemble and provide these scripts as part of the presentation to Congress.

Thank you all who participated and for your continued support.

Don Bailey disciplinary case postponed

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Disciplinary Board has entered an Order cancelling the hearing scheduled in the second phase of the Bailey disciplinary hearings, as we have been bringing you here throughout.  The hearing will be scheduled within 30 days of July 30, 2012, and the date will be posted as soon as it is received.

The matter is still before the hearing committee, i.e., the first step of the process, and there has been some non-specified finding that something that Don Bailey has done warrants discipline, though they refuse to tell him what it is.  Don has served subpoenas on federal judges and others to prepare again to put on his defense, or, in this case, his mitigating evidence, of the truth of his assertions made about judicial misconduct and agendas to hurt and harm him and his clients, and, ultimately, to show that he has done nothing to justify the years of mistreatment and abuse suffered by him and his clients.

In the wake of the interest in these matters piqued by Lawless America and Bill Windsor, we would again like to ask for your support in opposing the lawless actions being taken to “get” Don Bailey’s law license because he has had the courage to represent people like those Bill has interviewed.  Again, we will keep you posted on the status of these proceedings, and will let you know when the hearing is rescheduled, but we would like you to be prepared to appear and offer whatever support you are wiling to for Don, and for the larger causes in which we have been participating.

Thank you.

Senator Patrick Leahy comments on Bailey “shit storm” in October, 2003 hearings on Santorum-supported appointment of former AG Mike Fisher to Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Thanks to one of our readers, we have located the public comments of Senator Patrick Leahy on the Senate proceedings that led to former Pennsylvania Attorney General Mike Fisher’s appointment to the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2003.

Earlier that year, Fisher, who failed in a gubernatorial bid to Ed Rendell in 2002, had been found to be a civil rights violator in a lawsuit filed by Don Bailey on behalf of two former attorney general narcotics agents in Philadelphia.  We discussed this story at greater length in our Bailey “shit storm” article.

Central to that article was the appointment of former Attorney General Mike Fisher to the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals right after the verdict.  In a recent comment, one of our readers linked us to comments that Senator Patrick Leahy made for the record of the Fisher nomination proceedings.  Senator Leahy discussed some questionable Republican procedural maneuverings, and commented specifically on the nomination of Fisher as follows:

 The hearing on the nomination of Michael Fisher to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is also unprecedented. Never before to my knowledge has a President nominated to a lifetime position on a federal circuit court or this Committee held a hearing on a judicial nominee with an outstanding jury verdict naming him as personally liable for civil rights violations. In February 2003, a federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found that Mr. Fisher and other high level officials of the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General violated the civil rights of two plaintiffs, former narcotics agents with the Bureau of Narcotics Investigation (BNI) in Philadelphia. Never before in the history of federal judicial nominees of which I am aware, has a nominee ever come before this Committee with an outstanding judgment against him for so serious a claim.

The jury verdict is so recent that the trial transcript has only been delivered to the parties within the last several weeks, and so complex that even Mr. Fisher and his lawyers have asked for extensions of time in order to complete their post-trial motions. Soon a federal district court trial judge will be called upon to review the verdict against a person the President has nominated to the Court of Appeals that review all appeals from that trial judge’s court. In addition, if the jury verdict is sustained by the trial court, an appeal would lie to the very court to which Mr. Fisher has been nominated. These, too, appear to be unique circumstances.

Accordingly, this is a most unusual proceeding. As the Administration and Republican majority have abandoned traditional practices and standards we are being confronted with more and more difficulties. The few judicial nominations on which the Senate has withheld a final vote this year have each presented extraordinary circumstances or nominees with extreme positions. During the years in which President Clinton was in the White House, Republicans attempted a number of filibusters and, when they were in the majority, successfully prevented votes on more than 60 judicial nominees, including a number of nominees to the federal courts in Pennsylvania.

This is an unqualified, reputable source to confirm the exact position taken in our shit storm article.  Read the full text of Senator Leahy’s comments here.

Rick Santorum was one of Pennsylvania’s Senators, and was a sponsor of Fisher’s nomination.  Santorum also sponsored the nominations of Judges Kane, Conner, and Jones.  Don Bailey has recently announced that he is running for the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, and Judge Kane has just dusted off an old disciplinary action she’s been sitting on, waiting to see what the state disciplinary authorities do, and has pushed it forward with urgency due to a bogus assertion that Bailey is unreasonably delaying the state disciplinary proceedings – she has no regard for the blatant denial of his due process rights, let alone the innocent American citizens he represents.  She refuses to open the disciplinary proceedings, despite Bailey’s demands.  We will bring it all to you here.

Penn State graduate Rick Santorum is returning to Pennsylvania on April 24, 2012, to run in the Pennsylvania primary for President of the United States.  Objections to Bailey’s nomination petitions have been filed by a Pittsburgh law firm on behalf of some objectors, one of whom is a Penn State employee, Sean Miller, who is in the charitable funding department of Penn State.  The objectors were solicited by the attorneys.  Santorum also nominated Jerry Sandusky for a “congressional angel” award in 2002, the same year Sandusky was observed in the Penn State showers with a young boy.  See Penn State/Good old boy’s network article.

The objections have been assigned to a Commonwealth Court Judge who is a former Kirkpatrick and Lockhart attorney – Santorum is a former Kirkpatrick and Lockhart attorney, as is former United States Attorney and Pennsylvania Governor Richard Thornburgh.   Don Bailey could not be bought off when, as Pennsylvania Auditor general, Bailey accused Thornburgh and federal authorities with public corruption.

Since losing his re-election bid in 2006, Santorum has been an attorney with Eckert, Seamans, Leroy Zimmerman’s firm, and the firm with connections to the disciplinary authorities through the Eckert Seamans partner with whom Judge Yvette Kane has a personal relationship where she has reported  tens of thousands of dollars in gifts.  Leroy Zimmerman was Pennsylvania’s fist elected attorney general.  The Commonwealth Court Judge who just threw out the Centralia, Pennsylvania state lawsuit, Judge Bernard McGinley, is the son of Judge Kane’s lawyer friend, as also explained in the Eckert post.

Don Bailey’s cases were discussed during the confirmation hearings of former Third Circuit Judge and now Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as well, and we have pointed out the markedly anti-whistleblower stance of this Supreme Court.  Whistleblower cases are quintessentially about public corruption, and are the thrust of Bailey’s constitutional law enforcement practice.  Justice Alito has already acted on a matter in the Bailey disciplinary  case.

Marty Carlson has continued to try to portray Don Bailey as imagining grand conspiracies that involve countless people over numerous years, through his shameless attempts to use the courts to carry out the politics of personal destruction.  We understand that Marty Carlson is involved in accusations against this site for some kind of fraudulent activity.

Senator Leahy raised a very reasonable and obvious concern, and clearly stated the issue almost a decade ago.  Barbara Hafer sent a written apology to Don Bailey for spreading lies about him in a statewide campaign in the year 2000.  Marty Carlson is one of the liars she references.  Most of what we’re talking about in this site happened in this time-frame, and does involve many people, many who have been identified by name, and does extend into four decades of Pennsylvania politics.  That is what qualifies Don Bailey to be Attorney General.

This is a very short article with statements of fact.  There is no hyperbole, and no argument.  The implications speak for themselves.  Calls have gone out to Senators Casey and Toomey as well.

We still have not located the “shit storm memo”, but it was received by Don Bailey anonymously, and it was received through the attorney general’s office.   Efforts continue, but the shit storm speaks for itself.

Vote Don Bailey for Attorney General.

Thank you.

Author Bill Keisling covers the history of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General – 1950-1980 – the appointed years excerpted here

In what he calls part 3 in of his essay on Penn State, Jerry Sandusky, and Governor Tom Corbett, author Bill Kiesling has pubished a very thoroughly researched, and engagingly written history of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General – the appointed years.  The essay is a chronology of the history of interrelationship between governors and attorneys general over the years, and the following excerpt covers the short period in the Shapp administration that immediately preceded the constitutional amendment making it an elected office.

Bill’s essay provides a great historical perspective as we begin to cover the 2012 election for attorney general, and is useful to anyone interested in the office.  You can see the full article here.

Calamitous Shapp years bring an end to the appointed AG

After Fred Speaker’s tenure, a true calamity would befall the appointed office of Pennsylvania Attorney General. The calamity was arguably a man named Milton Shapp.

Milton Shapp served two terms as governor of Pennsylvania from 1971 to 1979. He was a self-made millionaire who made his money as a pioneer in the cable television business. Cutting corners in the cable business in Philadelphia made Shapp his fortune, but it turned out to be a bad idea for government. Shapp was a bright man whose heart was in the right place. But he was a terrible judge of horse flesh. Many of his appointments were bad. Some were outright criminals. His administration would be riddled with corruption.

Right from the gate, as he was sworn into office, Shapp sought major changes in the role of the state office of attorney general. Gov. Shapp’s appointment of J. Shane Creamer as his attorney general, Shapp wrote, was meant to change the sleepy and amiable state Justice Department into a “Public Interest Law Firm.”   The state AG would no longer be just “The Governor’s Lawyer.”

“We will be aggressive in our attempts to move constructive forces for positive social change,” AG Creamer announced at his appointment in 1971.

One of the biggest yet not-so-noticed changes under AG Creamer would be that the attorney general’s office would physically relocate from its close proximity to the governor in the governor’s suite in the main capitol building to a separate building next to the rotunda on the capitol grounds.

The AG no longer would be close to the governor’s side, hour-by-hour, day-by-day.

Former AG Sennett recalls that he ran into AG Creamer shortly after the latter moved his office and staff to their own building outside the governor’s office.

“I asked Shane why he’d moved the office,” Sennett recounts, “and didn’t he miss no longer being in the thick of things?”

“I have a different sort of relationship to this guy,” he says AG Creamer said of Gov. Shapp.

AG Creamer, in fact, wouldn’t last long.

Despite Shapp’s good intentions, under his administration the state attorney general’s office quickly got bigger and, by most accounts, far worse, and far more political.

Ever-growing and outrageous corruption, and what was increasingly seen as Gov. Shapp’s blatant political misuse of the office of attorney general to cover up these misdeeds, would by the end of his terms spell the demise of the appointed state attorney general, and would directly lead to the elective office of AG that plagues Pennsylvania today.

* * *

Thank you.

Murphy proves he is not fit to be attorney general – goes after Bailey’s family in attempt to extort him to quit AG race

In a bold and reckless attempt to coerce Don Bailey to give up his bid for attorney general, Patrick Murphy threatened to go after Bailey’s family for some sort of bogus allegations of fraud in the circulation of Bailey’s nominating petitions.  The allegations were nothing but bald-faced threats, and were completely baseless, and have not been followed through upon.  In pulling such a dirty political trick, Patrick Murphy has conclusively shown that he lacks the discretion and judgment to be Pennsylvania’s next attorney general.

While this site has endorsed the candidacy of Don Bailey, this article cannot be mistaken as a mere opportunist counter-attack.  It just so happens that the core of everything that this site and the record of Mr. Bailey stand for are summarized as opposition to the abuse of power for political purposes.  Nothing can more offend that principle than a threat by an aspirant for the position of highest law enforcement office of this Commonwealth to engineer a political result by suggestions that family members of candidates will be gone after.  This is extortionist conduct.  The declaration Bailey filed with the election commission follows:

Bailey Election Affidavit

Perhaps reeling from his last-place finish in the Westmoreland County endorsement contest, and his concern that he had no more corner on the veteran vote, with a real war hero, and decorated veteran in the race, to counter his service which, while honorable, was served in the JAG corps as a lawyer, not out in the bush leading troops, fighting for his country, and saving lives, Murphy turned to an act of desperation in attacking the family of, of all people, Don Bailey.  There was no debate, there were no exchanges of views, there was nothing more than meeting in Greensburg, and coming in last that prompted Murphy’s attack.  Why?  Who did Murphy take his leads from?

Murphy’s campaign website boasts that he has “dedicated his life to protecting Pennsylvania families, ” yet he is going right after the family of one of his opponents, not caring if it was a wife or a daughter, and then not explaining himself when respectfully asked to – allowing the threat and concern to linger over Bailey’s family.  At the very least, and this is being favorable, Murphy’s shenanigan demonstrates a serious lack of discretion and judgment – the fact alone that a candidate for attorney general can contemplate engaging in such conduct is a categorical disqualifier, in the view of this site.  Mr. Murphy is called upon to quit the race.

Why is Patrick Murphy, a 38 year-old lawyer who doesn’t try cases in Pennsylvania courts, and was admitted on another state’s bar exam, running for attorney general?  What experience does he bring that qualifies him to stand for any of the issues that face Pennsylvanians legal rights?  This action by Murphy suggests that he is running on raw ambition alone, with reports having it that he wants to be the next Democratic Governor, with the endorsement of Ed Rendell himself behind him, and has even higher ambitions along the lines of another famous Irish Catholic politician.

The Office of Attorney General, particularly in these times, is not something that should be viewed as a mere stepping stone on the path of a brighter political career.  Pennsylvanians have been stepped on by their politicians long enough, and they need an attorney general with his finger on the pulse of the problems that are affecting our daily lives, and not his eye on the next political prize.  Patrick Murphy decidedly does not have the qualifications to be Pennsylvania’s next attorney general.

We have learned that Murphy has filed a separate challenge to Bailey’s petitions.  Absent from the challenge is any mention of the threats against Bailey’s family, the only proper place any such issues should be raised.  We understand that Murphy hired a firm to undertake some kind of separate review of the election petitions, and are raising some technical challenges to the petitions, which is no surprise.  We understand that the challenge documents by Murphy’s supporters that have been filed, on their face contain demonstrably false information.  We expect this matter will proceed into the courts, but clearly view anything coming out of the campaign of Patrick Murphy with suspicion, as should the courts.

Thank you.

Pennsylvania needs a prosecutor AND a politician (a strong political leader) – Don Bailey clearly most qualified candidate for attorney general

The campaign slogan of candidate Kathleen Kane is “we need a prosecutor, not a politician” as attorney general.  We disagree.  We need both.  Of course we need strong law enforcement and tough prosecutors for the protection of the public and vigorous enforcement of the criminal laws of the Commonwealth, but we also need a strong and trusted political leader with proven integrity, and Don Bailey is best qualified by far to serve both roles.

The systemic issues that have corrupted Pennsylvania politics need extensive political reform.  There need to be calls for investigations into, and oversight of, the courts and their control over attorneys, and to the conditions that have allowed whistleblowers to be scuttled, and cronyism to flourish.  There may even need to be a call for a constitutional convention to address some of the problems endemic to the Pennsylvania Constitution.

We need a seasoned politician – a professional who knows how to work within the constitutional political process – to take these issues to the executive and the legislature, and to work in cooperation with federal authorities as well, and to be prepared to go toe-to-toe with the courts over attorney discipline and judicial discipline issues.

Don Bailey has served on both the federal and statewide levels in the past in politically-elected positions, i.e., positions in which he was responsive only to the people who elected him, and he served honorably, and always in the interest of his constituents.  Handwritten thank you notes from, and photographs of Don with, Presidents, commendations from his past service, both as a public servant and as an actually decorated combat veteran, adorn the walls of his office, and Don has stayed closely connected to the political process, though as an outsider, through his civil rights practice.

Don’s story – his experience that qualifies him to be attorney general – began when he was an elected official, and has continued in an unbroken chain through the present.  Only he has the political experience to tackle the problems that confront us as Pennsylvanians.

The Office of Attorney General has only been an elected office in Pennsylvania since 1981, and it has never been won by a Democrat.  The Republican party for some reason has seemed to garner the “tough on crime” image – it may be nothing more than that – Democrats are prosecutors in district attorneys’ offices all over the state.  The tactic is to make that portrayal, and to discuss toughness on crimes against children and the elderly.  These crimes no doubt are major areas of legitimate concern, but their use in the context of elections to the office are more of a scare tactic that serve only to distract from the real issues that should be high on the next attorney general’s agenda.

The prosecutor not a politician with tough on child and elder crime message is a co-opting of what has already been a successful formula for the Republican candidates, and a general election on that turf would be a contest as to whom can spend more money trying to get that message across, a contest that clearly favors Mr. Freed.

Every Pennsylvanian should be able to be assured that protection of children and the elderly is of the highest ongoing priorities of the criminal enforcement division of the Office of Attorney General, and that should never depend on the politics of the office-holder.  The importance of that commitment is even greater as access to the vulnerable is easier as technology advances, and, again, should be universally recognized.  It is fair to assure prospective voters of the priority, and the commitment to it.  It is artificial to make it the primary issue in a campaign, as, of course, it appeals to all our senses of safety and security, like a commercial advertisement, and distracts from the other issues that have affected the condition of government in Pennsylvania.

The real harm to children in this state through its highest-profile-ever child sex prosecution was not the result of the alleged acts of one man.  Grievous harm to numerous children was allowed to happen because of the “good old boys’ network” need to protect an institution, by using its lawyers and the courts.  Jerry Sandusky, of course, needs to be prosecuted and convicted if he is proven to have done what has been alleged, and Kathleen Kane could probably be counted on to do as good a job as any prosecutor in bringing him to justice, but which candidate, Kane, Bailey, Murphy, or Freed, will look into the institutional heart of the matter to the decisions that were made that allowed this case to become a sordid 10-year tale of cover-ups and abuses.  Bailey is the only one, and his record shows it abundantly.

Don Bailey’s political history is one of not turning a blind eye or giving in to the “business as usual” ways of Pennsylvania politics.  He stood in the way of a joint state and federal coercive effort to have him do so, and was smeared in a re-election campaign, and had his political future taken from him for doing so.

Don may be the only politician in American history to have won a defamation case arising out of statements made against him by his political opponent during an election contest.  The September 8, 2000 letter of apology he received from former Auditor General Barbara Hafer cites false information she received from certain federal officials as the basis of her smear.  One of those “federal officials” is Marty Carlson, former U.S. Attorney, and current U.S. Magistrate Judge, and author of the April fool’s day 2010 false smear against Don Bailey circulated throughout the state that was intended to be the last nail in Bailey’s professional coffin.  Carlson is a Penn State graduate, and Penn State has been protected by the good old boys’ network, including the courts, for years.

Pat Murphy has never tried a case in Pennsylvania courts according to reports, Kane as an assistant prosecutor likely has an acculturated and protective view of “the system”, as reflected through her reported commitment to keep on all the current staff of the AG’s office.  Dave Freed is endorsed by the primary focus of the initial investigation, governor Tom Corbett, and Freed’s father-in-law, Leroy Zimmerman, is also a major fundraising Republican operative, and was the first in the unbroken chain of Republican Attorneys general, elected in 1981.

Bailey was Auditor General while Zimmerman was Attorney General.  Zimmerman stepped down as Chairman of the Board of the Hershey School for Boys in November, 2011, one week before his son-in-law announced his candidacy.  Questions of improprieties in the Hershey Trust have flown under the radar of past Republican Attorneys General.  Zimmerman’s firm, Eckert, Seamans, also has close ties right into the state and federal federal courts, and the disciplinary authorities.  Linda Kelly does not appear to have any of these matters on her agenda.

The next Attorney General needs to understand the entire climate in which these things occur in order to have any chance of effecting any real institutional change, and Don Bailey has been at the heart of the efforts to expose it and change it for 20 years.  Kane has talked of “public corruption”, and the prosecutions of Jim Dewees, Mike Veon, and others serve some valuable public integrity purposes to be sure, but they are treating a symptom, and nobody but Bailey is addressing the problem.

The candidates for the office sell the “criminal prosecutor” aspect of the job, which, again, is an important part of the position, and one that will be a part of Bailey’s administration, to be sure, but the Attorney General is more than a prosecutor, he or she is the chief “law enforcement” officer of the Commonwealth, and Don Bailey’s practice as a civil rights lawyer for years, which could as easily be known as “constitutional law enforcement”, and offers a unique law enforcement background, that, with his hands-on experience, qualifies Don alone as the proper person for the job.

Don’s practice has centered on bringing cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which is quintessentially a constitutional law enforcement statute – it protects individual citizens from intrusions into their rights “under color of law”, i.e., by government officials.  There are criminal civil rights statutes as well.  One of the biggest problems in our state is corruption in our courts and high-level public offices, the state police, and other government institutions.  Government criminal prosecutors are beholden, and become acculturated, to deferring to these entities, understandably and by necessity, to some extent, but it creates a loyalty to the heart of the problem.

A constitutional law enforcement lawyer, on the other hand, particularly the kind of cases and law that Don typically deals with, is really a very important law enforcement function – it is policing the police, and the government, through civil cases prosecuted by individual citizens against public officials for violations of their rights under the constitution, and Don has a prolific record of successfully performing this law enforcement function over the years, and is the very reason the courts themselves are trying to stop him.

The other candidates have not even mentioned things like investigating Penn State administrators, or even Corbett, for what they knew, and the harm that was caused by trying to cover the whole thing up – the evidence of something nefarious cannot be denied – and they may not talk about it at all during their campaigns because they likely do not know how it all really works.  These are the types of things that Don deals with routinely, and, in the Penn State case, this would have been the most effective way to protect children, and needs to be done now to do so in the future.

What is the next attorney general going to do about the Centralia, Pennsylvania situation, which will involve investigations going back decades, through all the Republican law enforcement administrations, or the Kimmet case involving fraudulent debt collection practices right out of the current attorney general’s office, or the myriad other public corruption cases where the attorney general’s civil division is representing state police officials, executive office holders, and all other manner of constitutional law enforcement cases?  They will likely not be addressed if the next attorney general is committed to the same staff, and certainly if not beholden to the same party and the same executive.  They are issues that must be addressed, and Don Bailey has proven that he has the courage to do so, and is beholden to no one, except the people who should put him into office.

When Don Bailey won a verdict on behalf of two dedicated narcotics enforcement officers from the attorney general’s office against then-attorney general Mike Fisher, who was rewarded with a seat on the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals, a memo circulated that Bailey had caused a “shit storm”.  If not before, that was the time that they knew that Bailey must be stopped, because the real shit storm that “they” have always wanted to avoid is one that could be created by an elected law enforcement official that is not beholden to the gold old boys’ network, and to business as usual in Pennsylvania.  A shit storm could be just the cleansing Pennsylvania needs.

Thank you.

Bailey makes impressive showing in Westmoreland County

Within 24 hours of officially being placed on the democrat ballot for attorney general, and with no organization or campaign financing in place, Don Bailey finished strong in an endorsement contest among Westmoreland County democrats on Saturday.  Kathleen Kane also made a strong showing, and it was obvious that she had targeted Westmoreland County, with a substantial staff on hand to distribute campaign literature, and having made several visits to Westmoreland over the numerous months since she announced her candidacy.  Bucks county lawyer Patrick Murphy finished last, despite the fact that he also has been campaigning for months, boasted of over a million dollars in donations (Kane boasts of 2 million in cash-on-hand), and was even on the staff of Westmoreland County state representative Thomas Tangretti.

Bailey was the first of the attorney general candidates to speak, and wasted no time focusing right in on his major campaign theme – public corruption.  Bailey stirred the crowd with his mantra that “Tom Corbett cannot hide” from his political use of the office of attorney general, for both protection of his chronies and attacks on his adversaries, leading to travesties like the Penn State scandal, and Bailey promised to be a constant reminder to his democrat rivals of what the real agenda in Pennsylvania needs to be – political reform in Pennsylvania from the top down, and including the courts.  Bailey addressed the control that corrupt courts have gained over political agendas, and how the courts control over lawyers has diminished all of our freedoms, and created the climate in which corruption is allowed to flourish.

The crowd was very receptive to, and vocally supportive of, Bailey’s comments, as he seems to have hit on a theme that can appeal to a broad spectrum of voters whatever their pet issues, and whatever their politics, and Bailey sure can deliver a powerful message – clearly the most polished public speaker of the three.  Evidence of Bailey’s candidacy and the impact he will have on this race came right away from Kane, who followed Bailey’s speech.  In highlighting her issues, qualifications, and agenda, Kane could not help but include “public corruption” among her list of priority issues, clearly reading the positive reaction of the crowd to Bailey’s comments – this is not an issue of any significance in any of her other campaign materials – we only hope it was more than campaign rhetoric from her, as these issues, as discussed in this site, are matters of paramount public importance, and until we have a fairness administration system that works properly there are no other issues that can be addressed with complete integrity.

There is much optimism in the Bailey camp as a result of the Westmoreland County appearance.  Bailey showed that he was by far the superior candidate on his words alone, and this was done with little or no organization or financing in place.  Bailey did not have the luxury that the other candidates have had of long-term planning, organization, and financing efforts, as, while the other candidates were making appearances, and organizing campaigns, Bailey was under assault by the very system he seeks to reform and was fighting for his professional life, and the lives and futures of his many clients, who clearly all have become a part of the bigger agenda of silencing all of them.

Bailey has done nothing wrong – nothing deserving of any professional licensing charges, and nothing deserving of the abuse that he and his clients have endured.  Bailey is under assault by corrupt judges, with Judge Yvette Kane leading the current charge, for calling them corrupt, and for no other reason.  The focus that these judges have on stopping him are the same reasons Pennsylvanians should be voting to elect him – it is the common citizen – the spouse, parent, teacher, serviceman, laborer, police officer – the 99%, if you will – that Don Bailey has always held as the object of his efforts, and this is why we should continue to mobilize, and elect Don Bailey as Pennsylvania’s next attorney general.

Thank you.

PCRLN endorses Don Bailey for Attorney General

After a short delay in being officially placed on the ballot, Don Bailey has met all conditions for filing, and the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has accepted his nomination petition as candidate for the Office of Attorney General.   PCRLN is proud to be the first to offer its endorsement of Don’s candidacy.  He will be on the ballot as one of three democrat candidates vying for the position as Pennsylvania’s highest law enforcement officer in the April 24, 2012 primary.

Our endorsement of Don comes from the fact that he alone appears to have the courage, and the institutional understanding, to attack the problems in Pennsylvania politically at their real source, as we have discussed them here.  The real problem is the courts and their utilization as instruments of political control and favoritism to establish and maintain cultural and political climates that lay beneath the general feeling of unfairness that more and more Pennsylvanians are coming to experience in the courts, and the insidious effects these things are having on our society, vis. the Penn State scandal, etc..

As we make this endorsement, Steve Conklin and his 84 year-old father are moving from room-to-room looking for relief from their mistreatment by the by the courts, with new federal judge Mariani unbelievably saying that a federal court does not have jurisdiction over a sheriff taking property without due process of law, and the Centralia eminent domain case has been dismissed by a Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court panel upon which one of the judges sits, Judge Bernard McGinley, who is the son of an Eckert Seamans attorney John R. McGinley, who is in a personal relationship with Judge Yvette Kane, and believed also to be involved in the disciplinary maneuverings we have discussed.

There is an urgent agenda picked up upon recently, and being forced through by Judge Kane to remove Don Bailey from the role of attorneys in the federal courts, where he has represented hundreds of individual Pennsylvanians in actions against state and local officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which is a constitutional law enforcement statute itself, and has had the courage to do so in the face of a specific agenda to hurt and harm him for doing so.  The plan clearly appears to be to whitewash the record of Don Bailey and all of his cases quickly.  The fact that something like this can even be conceived of being done is why we need an attorney general with the historical perspective to understand and address these things.  In the American system of justice, the people police the police, and the judges, and the politicians, and that is what Don Bailey has been doing for his entire career.

Fairness in the courts themselves, and the control they have over attorneys through the disciplinary process, and over fair and open access to justice, are the principles that have affected dozens of specific individuals as set out in this site, and the correction of these problems is our primary political agenda.  The courts are proving unable to discipline themselves.

We have already reached out to Senators Casey and Toomey, and understand that other efforts to do so are underway.  This is an institutional problem that exists in Pennsylvania, and the Attorney general is uniquely situated to address these matters of public corruption at their true sources.  Don Bailey is uniquely qualified to address the real, longstanding political problems that have allowed the current state of affairs to exist, and that is why we endorse him for attorney general.

We have reviewed the credentials, and the campaign messages of Don’s opponents – Assistant Lackawanna County District Attorney Kathleen Kane, and Bucks County lawyer, and former Congressman Patrick Murphy, and believe both are fine candidates.  Kane is a tough prosecutor who appears to know the criminal laws of Pennsylvania and has a command of the criminal process, and Murphy draws upon his experience as an army JAG attorney and Congressmen, and his apparent political ambition to lead.  Each appears to be a fine candidate; however, it does not appear that either of the other candidates have the unique insights, vision, and independence that Don does, and we believe that Don is by far the best suited to be Pennsylvania’s next attorney general.

Thank you.

“I thought my case just fell between the cracks” – Bailey client motions to open updates, etc.

“I thought justice didn’t work for me in my case.”

“I figured that the judge just didn’t see it the same way.”

“The system just failed me in my case.”

These are some of the refrains heard from the numerous frustrated and disenfranchised clients and former clients of Don Bailey who have filed motions to open judgment, and others such clients who haven’t.  None have said “my attorney failed me”, “my attorney just didn’t care about my case”, “my attorney just wanted the money”, or other such things that are more commonly attributed to those who have received unfair and unjust results through the legal process.

What has become clear, as has been pointed out in other articles, is that many individuals have come to Don Bailey feeling those things that only can be felt by those whose civil rights – inherent and inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – have been violated in the course of their daily pursuits, and then are subjected to another, less easy to define, less easy to understand, deprivation of their rights by the courts, and the judges who are the stewards of our access to justice.  By engaging in the course of conduct that has been revealed and discussed at length in this site, these stewards, including Judges Christopher C. Conner, John E. Jones, Yvette Kane, Sylvia Rambo, A. Richard Caputo, and others, are denying American citizens access to the courts, and are civil rights violators themselves, both civil, as reflected in the motions to open, and possibly criminal, and nothing more than that.  How the legal remedy for their gross misconduct will be pursued, and how justice will be administered remains to be seen.  Our call out to Senators Casey and Toomey was one such effort, and there will be others.

It is in that vein that we again update you on the motions to open judgment filed by the 15 or so Bailey clients who took matters into their own hands, and asked these same judges, and those above them, and above them again, to reopen their wrongfully dismissed cases on the basis of the denial of their access to the courts due, in large part, to their misconduct directed against Don Bailey, and their hostility to the civil rights causes he represents.  The results so far of these motions to open are:  Dave and Pam Morris – denied; Deborah Phillis – denied; Vickie Smith – denied; Jim Dewees – denied; Steve Conklin – denied; Steve Wicks – denied; Jeff Dock – denied; Andrew Kundratic – denied; Dorcas Holmes – denied.

These results are not surprising as they are really nothing more than the judges who have engaged in misconduct, and their colleagues for life, denying that they engaged in misconduct.  Several of the Bailey class clients specifically requested that their motions be sent to other courts – denied also.  Not a single one of the orders says “Mr. Bailey was treated no differently than any other litigant” or “the plaintiff’s case clearly lacked merit and its dismissal was justified”, or even “this judge treats every litigant fairly and evenly” – not a word on any of it.

Instead, these motions, which at least 15 individual clients signed and filed on their own, believing in the merits of their contents, were dismissed because they were filed late (which they weren’t) or should have been filed sooner (which they couldn’t have been) or were not in compliance with the rules of court (which are relaxed when it comes to pro se litigants), or that they were not properly supported (this site was incorporated into the motions), and for other such intellectually dishonest reasons.  None of them were given due process, and Deb Phillis was even met with a menacing threat of sanctions if she did not withdraw hers.

The reality is that as long as these motions were considered under the current state of affairs, i.e., by these corrupt courts in this corrupt system, there was no chance that they would be granted, but they were still filed as an expression of these individuals in the inherent faith in their system, and the belief that right is right, but it was politically impractical for any of them to be granted – even honest judges don’t like to admit that they were wrong, and people in our system have been put to death because a judge or a prosecutor could not admit a failing in the process or mistake in judgment.  None of this is any reason that they should not have been filed in the first place – that would have been an acquiescence to the failed system.

These 15 clients of Don Bailey who have filed the motions to open judgment (some have not been decided yet) are among dozens of others who have had their civil rights violated by the courts themselves, and we will continue to provide a voice for their victimization, and to bring you their efforts to get their complete justice.

Thank you.

One American family’s experience with race, and how the federal courts became the lasting problem

Among the Bailey clients who have filed a motion to open judgment are Angela and Johnny Robinson, a mixed race couple, and their child, who live in Harrisburg.  Until they became involved in the Central Pennsylvania Youth Soccer League, the Robinson’s considered themselves a normal American family – both Johnny and Angela come from families with war veterans, going back to World War 2, and were proud of their family, and the values they were trying to instill in their child.

That all changed when their daughter was placed on a team coached by a racist City of Harrisburg employee, Eric Hicks.   Before at least one game, Hicks told his team “let’s go kick those white girls’ butts”, and at other times told the team to not shake the other teams’ hands because their race, and to not tell their parents things that he had said or done.  The Robinson’s reported Hicks’ racist and otherwise inappropriate conduct to the City and to the league, and that is when the saga really began, ultimately ending with the Robinson’s suspension from the league – for daring to speak out about racist misconduct.

The facts of the case are set forth in the Third Circuit Brief (to be attached).  There was clear evidence that Hicks made the offending race-based statements, and abundant documentary evidence that showed email communications, and planning as to how to retaliate against the Robinsons; yet the case was thrown out on “summary judgment” by Judge Christopher C. Conner, who has a demonstrated history of racial bias or insensitivity, as well as being part of the clique of Judges out to get Bailey, as demonstrated by the fact that he testified falsely under oath at the disciplinary hearings.

The story of the case in relation to this site is the real meaning of the “standard of review” and “scope of review”.  These are concepts that define and limit the ability of the courts to address and resolve issues short of taking evidence and having matters submitted to juries.  It is their excess that allows courts to have a heavy hand in creating cultural climates and concealing government corruption by chronies of the jurists and other agendas.  It is a theme time and time and time again in Bailey cases, and will continue to be addressed significantly, as it is a matter that is at the heart of issues of judicial misconduct, which cannot occur if a judge is constrained by these standards.  Indeed, even judges are, of course, only human, and have natural biases and prejudices that they carry with them in their lives, but, in keeping with the standards and scopes of review, they should still be able to be fair and honest judges even with these human foibles.

The Robinsons’ case shows the real harm that is caused by the “abuses” of these standards of review.  There is clear evidence that there was racial and retaliatory animus at play in the suspension of the Robinsons from the soccer league, and no one can rationally deny that.  That is where the court’s analysis is supposed to stop under its standard of review.  It is not for the court to pass judgment on the evidence, particularly judges like Conner, with demonstrated racial insensitivities and institutional biases, but it is for the courts to allow these things be decided by juries, and that is all that was asked for, and all that should have been provided.

The jury is drawn from the local community, and is a built-in check on cultural, political, and popular climates.  Indeed, the same set of facts could reasonably lead to differing results in two different areas, because cultural differences are built right into the civil rights landscape.  The point is that juries serve an important function in teaching lessons and providing civil vindication on many levels, when they are conducted in fair and open trials, and the federal courts have largely taken this factor out of the equation, which is acting as a cancer on the system of justice, and is allowing it to slip farther and farther down the path of blatant corruption and case-fixing, examples of all of which we brought you.

As we showed you in the Bailey shit storm and struggle within the civil rights struggle articles, juries are sympathetic to these civil rights causes, and have sent strong rebukes and awards in favor of Bailey clients, which cases were later fixed by the courts and taken away on specious grounds.  The agenda to get Don Bailey has led these judges to become even more activist, and to make sure that the cases never get to juries, and are thrown out by these otherwise “esteemed” federal judges on cold hard written records, without hearings, and without even any openness whatsoever.  This is not “justice” in America, but is the system of justice in central Pennsylvania.

In the Robinson’s case, Judge Conner blatantly abused the standard of review, and, because of the agenda to get Don Bailey, they have no hope of justice in this current climate, though they are sure to persist.  The real point is that Judge Conner did real and lasting harm to an honest American family, and race became the issue, and racial divisions were ratified by the Judge, and the course of conduct approved.

If the Robinsons got their day in court and lost, at least they would have the satisfaction of having known that their grievances were heard, but not having gotten that day at all has left the wounds open to fester.  The Robinsons came to the federal courts to deal with the reality of racism in the lives of a mixed-race family in modern America, and the federal courts did nothing but create another reason for the Robinson’s to feel less like an American family, and more like a mixed-race family.  That is a skewed result.

Once again, justice has not been done, and another Bailey client has suffered a second victimization – the first being the prejudices that we all know exist in our worlds, and the second being the secret biases and prejudices of our forum for addressing the first.  The Robinsons’ efforts continue, however, and we will keep you updated.

Thank you.

Miles Thomas, Baron the dog, and abc27 news – the role of the media in maintaining cultural climates

Perhaps even on a parallel with the courts, the media as an institution has the unique ability to affect cultural attitudes and climates.  One need only listen to the “liberal media” and “conservative talk” outlets accuse each other of abusing this access to discern that there is some truth to the proposition.  This article discusses that principle in relation to the political and cultural climates as they exist in central Pennsylvania, and the local media’s role in setting these climates.

We previously introduced you to the case of Miles Thomas before the disciplinary proceedings against Bailey really commenced in earnest.  Miles filed two cases, and two motions to open judgment.  In the first case, Miles claimed, and proved, that a Harrisburg Humane Society Officer, William Sandstrom, unlawfully took, and then would not return, Miles dog, his personal property, beloved to him.

The case was actively covered by some local press, the Patriot News included, and John Luciew of the Patriot News did a fine job keeping attention on this matter, which the federal court, Judge John E. Jones, proved impotent to deal with.  For some unexplained reason Judge Jones would not simply order the Humane Society folks to return the dog, and scheduled, rescheduled, and delayed proceedings until finally the dog was returned, although under some bizarre “fostering” type of relationship.  As is typical, Judge Jones used the very straightforward litigation as an attack on Miles, and his attorney, Andy Ostrowski.

Notably absent from the local news coverage of the incident was any coverage by the local abc affiliate, abc27 news of Harrisburg.  It was later learned that abc27 anchor Alicia Richards is a significant benefactor and public spokesperson for the Humane Society, and that there was pressure at abc27 to cover the story, but that Richards alone stopped the coverage, even threatening to quit if the station covered the story.

While the saga dragged out before Judge Jones, who would simply not tell the Humane Society to return the man’s property, abc27 hosted a fundraiser for the Humane Society, which, as it turns out, was hosted by Richards and by her co-host, Valerie Pritchett.  Because Miles had still not had his dog returned at the time – months after it was taken –he decided to attend the event and ask for his dog back again, and was escorted from the premises by the police.

This led to the filing of a second lawsuit by Miles, which he filed in Dauphin County that time, but which the defendants, Richards, Pritchett, the Humane Society, and the Crown Plaza included, were able to get back into federal court before Judge Jones, who dismissed this case, as well as Miles’ first case, after Ostrowski’s suspension took effect.

The theme that has been discussed throughout this site, such as in the Bailey judicial lynching and Penn State predictions articles, and elsewhere, is that the media, at least in central Pennsylvania, has some special access to the courts, such that they are able to combine to control popular opinion and cultural climates.

In the Miles Thomas case, the Humane Society’s protection by abc27, and even Judge Jones (the connection of these matters to the Thom Lewis Collie rescue case will be explored in much more detail), allowed them to persist in an indefensible course of conduct, and escape exposure.  It reinforced cronyism as a legitimate use of the courts.  It is not wrong for local personalities to support local causes, but it does compromise journalistic integrity to not disclose that these things motivate news agendas.

The Patriot News has some kind of special and coordinated access with what goes on in the federal courts.  The Bailey “shit storm” verdict of $1.5 million dollars against a sitting attorney general gets no coverage, nor do the wiretap verdicts against state police officials, nor most of the other significant cases he brings, but the Patriot published the Carlson smear, and announces disciplinary proceedings, and covers just about every story that casts Don Bailey in a negative light.  And, as if their devices were not obvious enough, they had taken to using an old file photo of Bailey wearing an eye patch, which was used every time they ran an article about Bailey, until someone was kind enough to demand that this unfair portrayal stop.

Even last week, David Wenner of the Patriot News covered the scheduled eviction of Steve Conklin from his farm, and his writings were filled with value-judged portrayals of Conklin as a fringe element deadbeat hippie who was trying to pull a fast-one to get out of his obligations under his mortgage.  When Wenner was asked about his portrayals, he gives the stock response that they won’t “try his case in the paper”.  That is fine, of course, and completely appropriate, but why try theirs?

This special access is also believed to be behind the Penn State/Sandusky, with deliberate leaks used to create a climate where plea agreements are the only reasonable alternative, and where, for further example, it does not appear to be any coincidence that Attorney Karl Romminger, who does a popular law-related local radio show on whp-580 became a public face of the Sandusky prosecution, only appearing to give voice to the “body-soaping instruction” defense to the molestation charges, and then not being heard from again.  The pubic seed was planted, like the other examples brought to you, and this is how popular opinions and climates are set.

The question to which we intend to devote further study is, why?  What is the dynamic at play behind these obvious abuses of special access to the courts as a result of the role of the media?  The position being taken here is that these matters are, in large part, a result of the dynamic of the courts unique control over lawyers, coupled to unscrupulous court officers inclined to abuse the access.

The media generally in the Unites States is fairly free and unrestrained when it comes to criticism of the executive (President/Governor) and legislative (Congress/General Assembly), and accusations of improper, corrupt, or crooked agendas are never shied-away from; yet courthouse corruption, and crooked judges are scarcely discussed and exposed unless or until the problem reaches epic proportions, and explodes into a full blown scandal, like the kids-for-cash scandal that rocked the courts, only within the last year; yet it is no longer discussed.

Media outlets get sued in courts, and they are staffed with attorneys whose licenses are controlled by the courts, and to whom the lawyers are obeisant and deferent, as a product of their acculturation, to the courts and the personalities who control them.  While executives and legislatures have some control over media, their efforts to control must by their nature be fairly transparent, as are their agendas.  In the climate in the federal courts, where hearings are rarely granted, and most work is done behind closed doors, there is a better chance that decisions will be made, but the motivations for those decisions easier to conceal, and justify, and media outlets, and their lawyers, must build all these dynamics into their reporting on matters before the courts.  As a result, there is distinct under-reporting.

This site has widely reported on the goings-on in the courts of central Pennsylvania, and if the things said in this site are true, the evidence is here, there is a huge problem in our courts, and one that does not get reported in the popular media; yet that media does appear to have access, and is part of serving other agendas.  This all is part of the larger problem that has created the climate that was discussed in our Welcome to this site, and will continue to be a focus of our efforts.

Thank you.