Tag Archives: Don Bailey

Don Bailey 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.

Transcripts

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.

Bailey challenges Supreme Court over due process violations in response to recommended suspension/PCRLN history of coverage of these matters

Bailey Challenges Supreme Court over Due Process Violations in Response to Recommended Suspension

The initial coverage on this site centered on the disciplinary proceedings filed against civil rights lawyer Don Bailey in early 2011.  From the start, we have contended that the Bailey disciplinary proceedings would show the need for court reform through the difficulties that American citizens were having in bringing their claims for the violations of their individual constitutional rights in the courts.  This is what has been shown, and the need for reform remains clear.

On May 1, 2013, the Supreme Court Disciplinary Board, as we predicted, recommended that Don Bailey be suspended from the practice of law for 5 years for doing nothing other than criticizing judges for not being fair, and, on June 7, 2013, Don Bailey filed a response demonstrating clearly both 1) that he was right in so-criticizing, and 2) that, as we have covered at length here, the proceedings against him, because they had a bogus origin and were designed to serve an illicit agenda, were bereft of the most basic due process protections.

We asked, from the beginning on this site, that readers take the time to digest and understand the issues that we have been discussing, and the very important themes that they reveal in the larger context of the access to the courts and justice that individuals in this country have when seeking vindication for the violation of their individual constitutional rights.  Please take the time to read and study both the Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board, and the Bailey Response to Board Recommendation.  The matter now will be finally decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, who still have a chance to see that true justice, i.e., constitutional due process, can be done in this case.

As to the general themes set forth in this site, there have been tens of thousands of words written in the articles on this site that address many of the general themes, in the context of the Bailey disciplinary proceedings, and the varying topics addressed throughout.  We had nearly 11,000 views in the month of May, and are on track to eclipse that number for June, and appreciate the reception our honest and coverage of these matters is receiving.  At this time, we refer our readers back through the history of some of the postings specific to the Don Bailey disciplinary proceedings, and the themes they reveal, and ask our newer viewers to familiarize yourself with all of these matters, and the many other topics reported on on this site.

In Civil rights lawyer Don Bailey under attack and he and clients sue federal judges for misbehavior, the Bailey disciplinary proceedings were introduced, upon the commencement of the “hearings” in August, 2011.  We pointed out how these proceedings had their origins over two decades ago in the political career of Don Bailey and how the forces he opposed as an  honest public servant have followed him into his service as an honest civil rights lawyer.  We further pointed out, nearly two years ago, the due process shortcomings that have stated with these proceeding, as clearly aticulated in the June 6, 2013 Bailey response.

In Don Bailey’s opening statement in defense of lawyers and your civil rights, we posted the words of Don in his opening statement that clearly articulated the themes that we have continued to cover.

In The lesson of the Bailey disciplinary hearings (phase one) – reform is needed, we commented on the first two days of the Bailey disciplinary hearings, and how the matters that had been revealed, as discussed, showed the genuine need for reform for the lawyer disciplinary system.

In The Bailey Docket – pleadings and filings in the Bailey disciplinary hearing, we linked in all of the filings from the proceedings so the reader could study these filings on their own, and reach their own judgments about the issues being addressed in the articles on this site.  The erosion of Constitutional rights on a mass scale is done incrementally in individual cases, and, while we appreciate the effort it take to understand these things, and the distraction it is from the daily responsibilities we all have, there is just no way, other than studying thee things for yourselves, that they can be understood.  No single tweet or link can capture all that needs to be said abut these critically important issues.

In UPDATE: Federal Judge recuses herself from civil rights case of Don Bailey and clients/State disciplinary authorities resist release of hearing tapes/Efforts underway to initiate investigations, we referenced the status of the federal court’s response to the ongoing disciplinary proceedings, the continuing due process administrative violations to which Don Bailey was being subjected, and the nature of the further efforts that were needed to correct these deficincies.

In The struggle behind the civil rights struggle, we pointed out the burdens and difficulties involved in representing injured individual American citizens in general in the courts of the United States, and how those burden are magnified in a climate of hostility toward civil rights cases in general, and how the ongoing disciplinary proceedings were a further impediment to the innocent individual citizens who were being represented by Don Bailey.

In Bailey clients demand cases be reopened/Hearing transcripts now available, we covered the efforts that Don Bailey’s clients were undertaking to seek to remedy the additional harms to them that were being caused by the agenda to “get” him, and how the discilinary proceedings revealed to them how him that

In The role of partisan politics in PCRLN – the Bailey “shit storm”

In Bailey motion demands that Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismiss disciplinary action against him

In PCRLN call goes out to Senators Casey and Toomey

In The politics of personal destruction – anatomy of the judicial lynching of Don Bailey – Caputo piles on

In Supreme Courts act in Silent Synchrony – Bailey disciplinary motions Secretly denied – once again no due process!

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

In Bailey responds (loudly and clearly) to state and federal disciplinary actions – proves state and federal complicity – and lack of basis to any charge of misconduct

In NEWS RELEASE: Andy Ostrowski and PCRLN file federal action based upon violations by courts and authorities in Bailey disciplinary proceedings

Bailey responds (loudly and clearly) to state and federal disciplinary actions – proves state and federal complicity – and lack of basis to any charge of misconduct

Linked below are the actual documents filed by Don Bailey (with slight revisions to the ODC response for readability) in response to both the state court and federal court disciplinary proceedings.  The documents will speak for themselves, as they should, and we will not comment significantly on their contents at this point.

There are a few contextual matters to consider, however.  First, the real genesis of this site centered around the very efforts as to which these responses relate, and have involved countless hours of Don’s time, and that of his staff, in getting together.  It was an unpaid job undertaken by Don Bailey for all of the clients he has represented over the years, indeed for all American citizens, and the effort cannot be measured in dollars in any case.  It was undertaken amidst an onslaught of abusive efforts to magnify his workload, and compromise the justice of the many clients he has continued to represent, and expects to continue to represent.  It is impeccable work product.

For relevant background, we commend our readers to our August 9, 2011 Bailey under attack article.  It provides what proved to be a fair summary of these matters.  The Bailey response to the ODC brief (below) draws upon the hearing transcripts, which are also attached here, and have been discussed.  The Bailey docket contains many of the documents referenced in the brief, and the Motion to Dismiss should also be consulted for context.

Bailey Brief in Response to Office of Disciplinary Counsel

The Brief of Don Bailey in response to the ODC brief is Don’s formal response to the brief of ODC, which we will provide.  Again, it is edited only slightly for readability.  This is the first post-hearing step in the Pennsylvania disciplinary process.  This brief goes to the hearing committee (family lawyer Brian Cali’s 3 member panel).  It is believed that Cali has marching orders.

From there, the matter goes to the actual Supreme Court Disciplinary Board.  That Board is not properly constituted as a matter of law.  It is supposed to have two non-lawyer members, but only has one.  That one is the brother of Supreme Court Justice Max Baer.  Justice Baer is also related to Patti Bednarik, formerly of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, who is central to the entire case for reasons that will become clear to the reader.   Justice Baer has recused himself from one of the matters filed with the Supreme Court.

From the Disciplinary Board, the matter goes to the Supreme Court itself.  The review by the Supreme Court will be “plenary”, i.e., total and complete review of everything.  Only the Supreme Cort can ultimately discipline.  As it stands, it is only clear on the record that Justices Castille (Middle District) and Baer (Western District) have had any involvement or knowledge of these proceedings in any material way.  The Supreme Court has not spoken at all on any of the merits of the matters placed before them – just very short orders denying the claims for relief.  The 385-page King’s Bench was denied by Justice Castille in mere hours.  They will at some point have to confront all of these issues, unless dismissed sooner.

Additionally, the following is the response that Bailey filed on March 23, 2012 to the disciplinary matter initiated by Judge Kane on January 3, 2011.  This was less than three weeks before the Pennsylvania ODC charges were filed.  We suggest, like we did on August 9, 2011, that these matters were orchestrated between state and federal authorities – Marty Carlson, Paul Killion, and some judges, and the Bailey brief speaks more to some of those issues as well.

Bailey Response to Federal Rule to Show Cause

The Kane charges were “investigated” (he never met with Bailey) by Hubert Gilroy.  Gilroy was on the panel, along with Killion, to select Carlson for Magistrate Judge in Harrisburg in the same courthouse where he had been a U.S. Attorney, and assistant, for a quarter-century or so.  Within mere months of his ascendency to the bench, Carlson published the April Fool’s day 2010 statewide smear and sanction of Don Bailey.  Judge Kane dusted off this charge that had been sitting, and directed the response to coincide with the ODC response, among the tremendous other workload heaped upon Bailey, as he has fought for all of our constitutional rights.

We ask you to take your time to read and understand the Bailey brief, in particular.  Come back, if you must, but if you have an interest in fair and just courts, and the real meaning of your civil rights, and the things we have discussed on this site, all these things should be completely understood.  As the brief makes clear, Bailey still has not been heard.  It’s finally a good place to start.

Thank you.

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

Attorneys take cues from the courts and seek sanctions from Bailey client

As we brought to you in our update on the Bailey class clients who have filed their own motions to open judgment, Judge A. Richard Caputo denied the motion filed by Deborah Phillis, and the opinion was immediately released into the public domain through a private research service.  Caputo’s Orders in the Miles Thomas and Jeffrey Dock cases were released to the same service.  Another Caputo Order conspicuously came through the same service sanctioning Bailey in the Dave and Pam Morris case, who have filed a motion to open of their own.  Caputo piles on.

In accord with the serious developing theme, i.e. the Conklin case and Bailey disciplinary proceedings, none of these Bailey clients are getting due process hearings, or any procedure whatsoever.

The first attorneys to take the bait, so-to-speak, come from the Harrisburg law firm of Shumaker Williams, through attorney Michael Rowan, who has filed a Motion for Sanctions sanctions against Deb Phillis, citing a lack of any reasonable basis to her claims that she has suffered prejudice because of who her attorney is that affected her case before Judge Yvette Kane, who has recused herself from all Don Bailey cases, and initiated disciplinary proceedings of her own, which have not been discussed in any detail.   Deborah has filed a reply brief, citing significantly that they have operated under an entirely false factual construct, and objecting to her mistreatment for being clearly reasonable.

The Motion for Sanctions essentially cites Phillis’ statement that she intends to do anything and everything she can to get her justice, which is not asking for anything at all.  The motion for sanctions is, on its face, more punishment for daring to raise issues of bias against Don Bailey, and the civil rights causes of his clients, and simply smack of an attempt to oppress and silence an innocent American citizen for daring to raise an issue that is reasonable on its face.  There are 70 votes of general support.  Their reason cannot withstand that.

Mr. Rowan was kind enough to speak with us about the filing, and assured it was directed by his clients, but was equivocal in his support for such a drastic measure, citing only Ms. Phillis’ “pattern in this case” to support the motion.  Pattern?  In this case?  Rowan also suggested that there was a proposal to resolve the matter by withdrawing the motion for sanctions in exchange for withdrawing the case.  That’s the removal of the proverbial boot from the throat, but Phillis may have no choice.

Rowan did say that he was familiar with this site, but that he had not read it in any depth.  He based a motion for sanctions an a filing by Deborah Phillis that specifically cited this site as support.  There do appear to be questions of good faith involved, a lack of diligence at least.  We discussed the fact that this is exactly what opportunist attorneys do when they read clear judicial attitudes in our struggle behind the civil rights struggle essay.

The entire tone again is set by the lengths to which some personalities, judges unfortunately, have gone to create a public “smearjob”, as Bailey has been heard to say.  Judge Rambo has already threatened Jim Dewees and Vicki Smith with sanctions, and barred the door to the courthouse against them, and the dissemination of the attacks on Bailey speak for themselves.  See Politics of personal destruction.

What is wrong with these American citizens asking for fair access to their courts?  Why are they being subjected to mistreatment and sanction freely for suggesting they have been subjected to mistreatment and sanction?  There would appear to be many opportunities for the courts to still discipline themselves and remedy what is on record here as being serious wrongs.   We will continue to bring you these updates.

Bailey discipline case update

The Supreme Court has entered an Order scheduling the submission of post-hearing findings of fact and conclusions of law, tentatively believed to be due in mid-February.  The process requires each side to submit “proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law” in support of their respective positions.  Presumably, because the Office of Disciplinary Counsel carries the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, they will be required to make a submission making their case against Bailey.  This will be based upon the hearing transcripts and exhibits submitted into the record on August 11 and 12, 2011.

Bailey, of course, has raised, once again, substantial due process issues, which have led to an infirm record to support anything, but the Supreme Court has denied his substantial and repeated pretrial motions, largely in one-line orders, despite Bailey’s pleas for due process.  Every reader of this right now is in the absolute dark of the this judicial decision-making, and that simply is not fair to the large numbers of people who have significant interests at stake.

It is assumed that “they” again are attempting to back Bailey into a corner so they can see what he says about the record before the Supreme Court Disciplinary Board, most of which has been made public here, and then fashion whatever it is that they are going to do, which will likely involve more of the same.  Through the disciplinary process, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court still has the opportunity to fully  address the substantial issues raised by Bailey throughout these proceedings, and to do complete justice in this case, and to all of us.  There are many issues to address, well before any issues concerning the “complaint” against Bailey are reached, and we are all entitled to the transparency that is inherent in the notion of due process.

We will keep you updated on these efforts.

Thank you.

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

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

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

Dewees.Smith Motion Reconsideration Rambo

Order Dewees.VSmith

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

Rambo letter nov 16 2011

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

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

The John and Jane Does have never been identified.

Thank you.

Civil rights lawyer Don Bailey under attack and he and clients sue federal judges for misbehavior

The paramount issue our legal system is presented with currently is the ongoing campaign, if you will, by a small clique of federal judges, and their state and federal political friends, to go after the law license of decorated war veteran, former congressman, former Pennsylvania Auditor General, and now prominent civil rights attorney Don Bailey.

Don got into the practice of civil rights over the fallout from his own victimization when, as Auditor General, he revealed substantial pubic corruption in the State of Pennsylvania at its highest levels.  He was visited by state and federal officials, including the United States Attorney himself, and was, in essence, asked what it would take – what graft, gift, or favor – in order for him to back down and look the other way.  Don refused, and stridently, with the truth behind him, assured these scoundrels that he would never be bought, and ever since that day, Don has been in a battle to reveal public corruption, and to fight for its victims.  There is an extensive interview of Don that is recorded in his website, which is linked to this page.

To the best of our knowledge, Don is the only politician in American history to have prevailed in a defamation lawsuit against his political opponent (Barbara Hafer) that was the first civil rights lawsuit he filed after leaving public office.  The case, Bailey v. Hafer, languished in the courts for a decade, and in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for years, before decided in his favor.  While the case never did go to trial, it did settle favorably for Don, and, despite the fact that Don had his bright political future stolen from him unjustly, and lost everything he had, his only request was the Ms. Hafer apolgize to him, in writing, which she did.  In the apology, Hafer admitted she lied about him, and pointed the finger at certain “federal officials”, one of whom was Martin C. Carlson, former United States Attorney, and now a United States Magistrate Judge, under Kane, Conner, and Jones, and the author of 2008 scandalous ans scurrilous attack on Don Bailey in a 56 page memorandum that was distributed through statewide media.  Don’s reply was not.

The federal courts, and some of the political operatives who run them, including Marty Carlson, have taken up the cause for their political “friends”, and have joined in the effort to protect the corrupt politicians and judges, and to end the career of Don Bailey, and to cut off access to the federal courts for the many, many police officers, state and local officials, public employees, minorities, and others who have been victimized and abused by corrupt people and power structures, and Pennsylvania will be left to languish in the backward ways of thinking and behaving that have destroyed public confidence in the judiciary, and even in our elected officials.  These judges are out to hurt and harm Don Bailey and the civil rights clients he represents because they, too, are beholden to the corrupt system that put them where they are – on the bench of our esteemed federal courts donning the powerful black robe, where they then use their tremendous power to protect the structures that got them there rather than foster their independence from those systems in recognition of the singularly-significant ability of a federal judge to influence cultural climates.

The claims of Don Bailey will be proven, and the proof is all there, and we hope to share this all with you through our initial efforts on this site.  Don has had over $3,000,000.oo in verdicts awarded to his clients, from all walks of life, and significantly in recent years from the ranks of law enforcement themselves,  by juries performing their roles and exercising their responsibilities as American citizens.  All of these verdicts have been taken away as part of the plan to harm him and his clients.  We do not cast aspersions on the judiciary lightly, nor do we wish to suggest that every judge is corrupt, because certainly most, hopefully, are not, but Don’s cases are being “fixed”, the old-fashioned, crooked way – by picking up telephones and through winks and nods, but the evidence is clear – from the $1.5 million verdict he was successful in obtaining on behalf of 2 state attorney general narcotics agents against, inter alia, the then-Attorney General himself, Mike Fisher, who now, of all things is a Judge on the Court, the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals, that threw out the verdict against him, to the recent decision overturning another case where a state trooper was a victim of wiretapping that was committed by his own State Police supervisors in a dishonest effort to hurt and harm him.

The further plan, which is already afoot through the, attack by Marty Carlson, and will be shown through evidence relating to Judge Conner, is to portray Don Baily as a disgruntled, malcontent, and “fallen star” who has imagined grand conspiracies to justify and validate the political losses that he suffered 20  years ago, but that is a lie, every word of it, and it is already out there as a myth that is believed by many.  The Hafer apology came in the year 200o.  At that time Carlson was United States Attorney, Jones was a co-campaign chairman/fundraiser with Tom Corbett for tom Ridge, Kane was on the federal bench in Harrisburg, and the Third Circuit Judge Mike Fisher case (cases/saga) were already in the courts or very near, annd the trial on those cases was in 2003.  After that trial, an email circulated through then Attorney General Fisher’s office that “Bailey has caused a shit storm” in Harrisburg.  Conner acceded to the federal bench in 2004, and immediately launched into what are obvious attacks by a political neophyte that have continued, unbroken, and coalesced with the others, and from there you will see an continuous chain of abuses, right through the day of this posting, and the hearings scheduled for August 11 and 12 in Harrisburg that will prove that this is indeed a conspiracy involving federal judges and others to harm the rights of innocent American citizens whose constitutional rights have been violated because of who their lawyer is and what he represents to them.  Nothing can be more anathema to our entire system of justice.

The current strategem being employed is to use the sycophants in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board and its Disciplinary Counsel, life-long political lackey Paul Killion, to mount an attack on Don Bailey’s law license through an easily provable corrupt effort of these same federal judges in concert with their state political friends.  The attachment to this post is what is called a petition in the Supreme Court’s “King’s Bench” or “extraodinary” jurisdiction, where the Supreme Court is asked directly to discipline itself, and to intervene in these corrupt proceedings and bring them to an end.

See also:  Exhibit 3, Thom Lewis v. Jesse Smith, et al, Third Circuit motion contains the allegations for which Bailey is being charged

The Pensylvania Supreme Court, and the Lawyer’s Disciplinary Board, as well as the Judicial Misconduct Board have fallen into disrepute of recent due to the criminal prosecutions of Luzerne County Judges Ciavarella and Conahan in what was known nationwide as the “kids-for-cash” scandal.  Recent commissioned reports have identified the failings in the system that had led to the judicial corruption scandal that gave the entire state a black-eye, and the Don Bailey discipline gives the Supreme Court a clear chance to prove its own integrity by addressing the same failings that exist in regard to Don Bailey, and to end the corruption that undermines the confidence we all have in our judiciary, and to usher in the reforms needed so that American citizens do not continue to be victimized by our courts for daring to do something about their victimization by their government, and those others “acting under color of law.”

Don Bailey is also in the process of filing a federal civil rights lawsuit, on behalf of himself and at least 25 of his victimized clients, who will be named as plaintiffs, and will be making very extensive accusations of corruption and unlawful behavior on the part of a wide-array of state and federal officials, including the judges who have worked specifically to hurt and harm him.  These judges and other operatives have felt that because they can control the access to information to the public, and how it is presented, they could ostracize, isolate, and surround Don, and move quickly and easily in for the kill.  Well, despite the fact that they have been known and out to get Don Bailey for nearly 20 years, they should know that his honesty is unshakable, his commitment to his clients is second-to-none, and the confidence that people have in him is unwavering, but of course they wouldn’t know that, because they are the people who he has been fighting against, and they woefully underestimate the motivation of honest American citizens to expose and oppose corruption in our government, and this site will continue to bring you the developments as the cases proceed.

The agenda is clear – stop Don Bailey, but more importantly, stop the civil rights clients he represents from having the courage to expose and oppose public corruption, and it is our goal to help shine the light that needs to be shone on the courts, and their efforts to keep the people from uncovering public corruption.  This will be your site for the truth, and we hope the Courts, including the court of public opinion, will be the site for the justice.

Update: since this was originally posted, a federal lawsuit has been filed by Bailey and 25 of his clients.  The link to the suit is available here, and will be updated.

Leave a comment

Share


Steve Conklin/York County race issues and treatment by the federal courts

Stephen Conklin owns a 112 acre farm in Warrington Township, York County, tucked between Gifford Pinchot State Park and the Conewago creek. Steve calls his enclave “Satori Farm”, and has been called to life as a servant. He has opened his farm up to countless people over the years, has hosted festivals, and has provided a small refuge at times for urban children who yearn to enjoy nature.

On the other side of the hill from Satori Farm is a farm where KKK cross-burnings had been known to occur in the not-too-distant past (1970s). Steve’s saga began when the Township started an ordinance enforcement crusade against him, perhaps motivated by a racial animus spurred on by some developers’ interest in acquiring a prime piece of real estate.

Steve had been through numerous attorneys, and mortgage payments of his mysteriously disappeared, causing him an arrearage, leading to a series of fraudulent and ongoing attempts to foreclose on his property, and ultimately leading him to Don Bailey in 2004. Bailey filed a federal case on Steve’s behalf, which was assigned to Judge Conner, and led to the May, 2006, 4-page opinion, which is linked below that Steve, and others, believed reflected racial animus, or insensitivity at least, on the part of Judge Conner, and which later became a matter of sanctions, and the first known referral of Bailey by Conner to Killion/ODC.

Steve has a story to tell about the York County Courts as well, as does author Bill Keisling through yardbird.com, and Steve is continuing to fight in federal court, representing himself pro se, in a case in which Judge Kane has mistreated him for raising claims that he has been mistreated because of his association with Don Bailey. We will continue to provide updates on all of Steve’s courageous efforts, and for now link you to the following documents from his federal civil rights case where represented by Don Bailey – Conklin v. Warrington Township, et al..

The following files are provided for your review to familiarize yourself with the case:

Conner May 06

Conner sanctions 6.06

Conner SJ Order

Motion Reconsider Conner 5.06

Motion Recuse Conner

Order Conner Recuse

Conner 9.06 sanction

The Thom Lewis Case (case involving dog rescue client which lead to the discipline against Bailey)

The Thom Lewis case really tells a large part of the saga of Don Bailey, and others being the direct target of specifically alleged and provable judicial misconduct.  This case also reveals the political and personal interconnectedness of Judge Jones with some individuals who are involved in some sort of cults/healing centers, and dog trafficking, who were running parts of their operations out of the PLCB offices when Jones was the Chairman, and were in business and/or affiliated with Office of Disciplinary Counsel personnel.  This case lead to the underlying federal court sanctions proceeding, which in turn led to the referral of the document linked below to Disciplinary Counsel (Killion and Fulton) and to the charges being discussed throughout this site.

Application_for_Rehearing_En_Banc