Bailey clients demand cases be reopened
In what is surely an unprecedented legal maneuver in the courts of the United States, nine present and former clients of Don Bailey, and his colleague, Andy Ostrowski, have signed their own motions to have eleven (updated 11/16) of their cases reopened based upon the matters revealed through the disciplinary proceedings against Don Bailey. The cases go back to 2003. It is believed that still other other such motions will follow.
The admitted basis for the motions first revealed itself through the March, 2011 recusals of United States District Court Judges Yvette Kane, Christopher Conner, and John E. Jones from all of Don Bailey’s cases, in excess of 20 at the time – unprecedented in itself. There are statutory bases for recusal, involving bias, prejudice, and things of the like, and these Judges have now admitted that they have met that standard. Mr. Bailey has been saying so for years, and is currently being disciplined for saying it. His clients are now saying it too, and demanding that their cases be reopened because of the effect that these biases, and when they arose, clearly has had, or may have had on their cases. There is a process in our courts to address motions of this nature, very clearly based in the federal rules and precedents of our Supreme Court, and through this process, all sides of the issue have the right to be presented.
Sample Motions – Thomas Motion to Open (Jones.abc27) – Phillis Motion to Open (Kane)
Bailey has taken the position throughout these proceedings that either the courts must prove capable of disciplining themselves, or political solutions aimed at reform will be needed, and we have discussed these things in here as well, and where responsibility ultimately lies, and will be shortly bringing you the ability to participate in these solutions. For now, however, it is a matter still squarely within the ability and power of our courts to correct, although it means that dozens of lawyers and their other clients will be forced to participate in the process. But if it is what should be done, then it should be done.
One of the core problems that Bailey has discussed is the control that the courts have over attorneys, and their livelihoods, and how loyalties, and ultimately justice, become compromised by that control. Perhaps over time the legal profession has become acculturated to look past the faces of the persons who seek the attorney in the first place – Bailey solicits on reputation alone – and to make it about the attorney. No clearer case can be made than this one. With these unprecedented filings, the courts must now look into the faces of those to whom access to justice has been entrusted, and to determine whether they can bring discipline on themselves.
Each of the clients filing such motions will ultimately have the right to seek relief all the way through the United States Supreme Court, and there are proceedings still underway in both the federal courts and, of course, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which can wend their way through to the Supreme Court as well, sooner and later, and that is the process through which the Bailey question – whether the courts are capable of disciplining themselves – will be answered. These are individual American citizens, who are school teachers, police officers, public administrators, and contributors in every way to society, and they ask for nothing – except “their day in court.”
In Lessons of the Bailey hearings, we discussed “phase one” and urged that reform is needed, and reform at some level is most definitely needed. We suggest that the days of reform through silencing the protest, squashing the attorney, and whitewashing the stain are over. That is what we believe that the recusal and coordinated disciplinary proceedings are intended to be in this case – old political thinking playing out old political agendas (and perhaps some newer agendas) through the politics of personal destruction, and abusing our courts to do so. We apologize for stating that conclusion, but it has proven to be true. There is, of course, room for some philosophical dispute in the area of civil rights, and we hope to have those discussions here, but both the means being used and the ends being sought in this case are improper by any legal standard. Efforts will be made to have all these matters properly investigated as well.
A bias surely comes through on this site, but it is believed to be a bias compelled by the facts, and in favor of the innate sense of justice through which these rights are determined. Opposing views, criticisms, debates, and discussions are most welcomed. We are all potential jurors, and the jury decides what is and is not acceptable in the are of civil rights, according to their own cultural values in accordance with the law. Review these materials, keep informed, and reach your conclusion.
The following are a listing of the cases in which motions to open judgment have been filed:
Miles Thomas/ABC27 News/Humane Society – Thomas has two cases open, the first involving the wrongful seizure of his dog by a Humane Society officer, then a second case which involved allegations of local television personality Alicia Richards’ of abc27 agenda to protect the Humane Society politically as one of their primary local public supporters.
Deborah Phillis/Harrisburg School District – This is a case of age discrimination and retaliation by a dedicated Harrisburg City School teacher against certain of her administrators and the District, in which the right to trial was unfairly cut off. The case is currently before the United States Supreme Court on Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
Julian Adams/Harrisburg Police – Please click the link to this discrimination case of a Harrisburg City Police Officer.
James Martsolf/Pennsylvania State Police – Martsolf’s was a highly acclaimed member of the distinguished SERT team until his then-wife became the victim of an ugly course of sexual harassment, and Martsolf became a target after he complained too. There are many state police cases we hope to bring you in the future.
Vickie Smith/Central Dauphin School District – Vickie’s case grew out of her reports of a mold problem at the Central Dauphin School District. This case demonstrates the principles of secrecy and acculturation, and involve Senior Judge Sylvia Rambo.
James Dewees/Dauphin County Prison – Dewees was a deputy warden at the Dauphin County Prison who reported his boss, Warden Dominick DeRose, and others, as being involved in administering the prison in corrupt ways and abusing taxpayer dollars.
Steve Conklin/Warrington Township – Please see link for Conklin’s York county saga.
Angela and Johnny Robinson/City of Harrisburg – the Robinson’s sued the City of Harrisburg and persons involved in the youth soccer leagues for spreading racially charged messages, and interfering with their rights as to how to raise their minor daughter.
Jeffrey Dock/Snyder County Prison – See the link to the story of Jeremy Dock, prison informant allegedly murdered in prison, with suggestions of a coverup of prison officials’ illegal conduct.
Bailey hearing transcripts
We post these transcripts with some reticence because there are certain contextual premises that need to be understood in terms of what a proper due process hearing is intended to encompass in our system of justice. We also hope to bring them to you in more manageable form. The premise that will be developed, from the standpoint of this site, is that, although shrinking from nothing factually, these transcripts can be relied upon for nothing as a basis upon which to deprive Mr. Bailey of his liberty and property rights in his chosen occupation. These are “due process” issues, and have been addressed in the Bailey Docket, and which should have been addressed and resolved prior to ever convening a proper hearing. There was no reason not to, and these transcripts will be further broken down and studied in that regard, an effort which we had hoped to do by now.
These hearing transcripts reflect the mockery that can be made when our courts are used as instruments of political oppression instead of affording open access to justice. We apologize again for the strong opinion, and wish to maintain objectivity, but trust that further study will bear out that conclusion. The due process issues that were unresolved left Mr. Bailey with very limited opportunity to confront his accusers, and the hearing did not proceed in any orderly fashion, with what appeared to be a coordinated effort between disciplinary counsel and hearing examiner to distract Bailey, avoid issues, and obstruct witnesses. This was a hearing held by lawyers for lawyers, and should be held to an impeccable standard of due process, respect, and civility, and instead it degenerated into one witness being threatened with arrest for doing nothing but trying to testify completely, other witnesses repeatedly interrupted with discussions that turned the rules of evidence on their head, and a process that is fatally corrupt. We are sensitive to the reverence with which we hold our esteemed judicial institutions, and it is because of that respect that efforts to denigrate them should be addressed in the strongest of terms. We believe these proceedings, and everything that underlies them, have denigrated them.
Day one was primarily the testimony in the disciplinary counsel’s case of Judges Conner and Jones, which includes, among many other things, Judge Jones admitting that he has decided issues without waiting for Mr. Bailey to respond because, in essence, he already knew what he was going to say.
Day 1 Disciplinary Board Hearing DBailey
Day two involved a string of Don Bailey’s clients, some of whom have been mentioned in this site, and his colleagues Sam Stretton and Andy Ostrowski about their knowledge of discussions concerning efforts to get Don Bailey, among other things.
After a delay of over 2 months, the Supreme Court has finally issued rules to show cause in connection with the subpoena issues. More will be provided.
Federal Judge Arthur Schwab has thrown out the Bailey/John Doe case in its entirety, without even allowing the John Does to be named. The following is the motion for reconsideration that Bailey filed concerning this action by Judge Schwab.
Brief Reconsideration Dismissal
We will continue to provide you with updates as all these matters proceed.