Hearing Transcripts

Don Bailey Disciplinary 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.

HearingDay 2

Further proceedings

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.  More on this as well.

3 thoughts on “Hearing Transcripts”

  1. The average law-abiding citizen has no idea these types of things go on…they need to know what truly happens in the courts and just how out-of-hand this has become.

  2. Commentary

    “Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with
    knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would
    conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to
    serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by
    irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal
    conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept
    freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary

    The judges decide what “reasonable minds” are and how many are sufficient. Is it 1, 5, 500,000, 5,000,000? They choose. They decide how much and what specific “knowledge” means and they set the parameters regarding “all the relevant circumstances” and precisely what “a reasonable inquiry” involves.

    In other words, you can complain about the most heinous deeds backed up with substantial evidence to prove your position, and get nowhere. It is all up to them.

    If any judge is truly interested in uncovering corruption in Pennsylvania, let her heed the the words of Judge Cleland who said the commission for the Cash for Kids tragedy would seek to identify “all of those involved who, whether by action, inaction, or silence, whether by willful choice or benign ignorance, engaged in an assault on the fairness and impartiality of our legal system.”

    Based on what is known about the crimes perpetrated on innocent children and the public in general in Pennsylvania by our legal community, rooting out and preventing these kinds of “assualts” must become their first priority. How can judges and lawyers sit back and watch this debacle- sanctioning a hero -and do nothing?

  3. I read about Don Bailey and his “legal” situation in an article by Richard Gazarik. I know what he is up against – PA judicial corruption.. Pennsylvania is the #1 state for judicial corruption. I should know. I lost 99% of everything that I had worked for, as a City teacher, for 33 years, in the Allegheny County Divorce system. My divorce lasted 6 years, cost $85,000 and I had 7 attorneys. I was in Court twice, BUT nothing was EVER recorded or docketed in the Office of District Court explaining what happened on those two days. Also, three things were filed/docketed, in my divorce, that never did happen in my divorce. The judge made me pay support even though I was not legally separated. After completing two Health Interrogatories, I was prohibited from disclosing my open heart by-passes and my type II diabetis. I thought PA was 50%-50. The judge was partial, one sided and bias in my two court appearances, BUT who knows? Nothing was ever recorded in the Office of District Court for those two days.
    I could go on and on…….but who would believe that the entire legal system is corrupt!
    This includes the Bar Assoc., the judical and attorney discipline boards. I know.
    I “wrote” them all up and nothing happened. Except lies and more lies. “There is honor among thieves.”I had to disclose everything, BUT the judge told my wife that she did not have to disclose anything. My finances were frozen. My wifes weren’t.
    “I see nothing wrong with the wife receiving practically everything and the husband receiving practically nothing because the husband was represented by councel.”The judge. There is a lot more but…………………..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Working to provide equal justice under the law in Pennsylvania