Tag Archives: Judge Yvette Kane

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.

Federal Judge Yvette Kane lists approximately $80,000 in gifts of jewelry, an automobile, interest, trips and other gifts

Original Story from YardBird.com author Bill Keisling, follow this link if you wish to view all of the links and evidence Mr. Keisling has taken the time to compile.

Posted August 4, 2010 — A chief federal judge in Pennsylvania received more than $80,000 in gifts from three Pennsylvania attorneys from 2003 to 2008, according to financial disclosure statements Judge Yvette Kane filed with the court.

Yvette Kane is the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

In six successive Financial Disclosure Reports filed by Judge Kane from 2004 to 2009, covering the years 2003 to 2008, Kane lists approximately $80,000 in gifts of jewelry, an automobile, interest, trips and other gifts from “John R. McGinley, Jr, Esquire.”

A John R. McGinley, Jr., is a member of the board of directors, and Chair of the Executive Committee, of the law firm Eckert Seamans, of Pittsburgh, according to that firm’s website.

Kane was appointed to the federal bench in 1998. She became Chief Judge of the Middle District of Pennsylvania in 2006. The chief judge is charged with sweeping administrative and appointive duties.

Kane’s financial disclosure statement for 2003 lists $10,000 in “Jewelry, Personal Gifts,” from “John R. McGinley, Jr., Esquire.”

Kane’s report for 2004 lists $17,800 in “Jewelry, Personal Gifts,” and “Steeler’s Playoff Tickets” from McGinley.

Also in this report for 2004, Judge Kane lists a $750 gift of a “Guided Fishing Trip” from James E. Nevels.

In 2006, in addition to $3,000 in “Jewelry, Personal Gifts” from McGinley, Judge Kane listed her receipt of an additional gift of $1,200 in “Jewelry” from David W. Sweet.

Having initially listed $36,000 in gifts of “Jewelry, Personal Gifts” from McGinley in 2007, Judge Kane filed later an amended report with the federal court’s Disclosure Office.

“Please accept this letter as an amendment to my Annual Report dated May 14, 2008,” Judge Kane wrote. “Both amendments relate to the donor John R. McGinley. During 2007 Mr. McGinley and I exchanged many gifts. He has assisted me with a more detailed accounting of those gifts and has reminded me of two instances of travel that should be reported.

“Part IV addressing Reimbursements should be amended to add the following travel, with John R. McGinley listed as the Source:

“May 25-28 –Boston, Mass.-Attend wedding-Airline travel, Accommodations, Meals

“July 5-8–Wolfville, Nova Scotia-Vacation trip-Ferry travel, Accommodations, Meals

“Part V of my report should be amended to itemize gifts from John R. McGinley as follows:

“520 Household Items
514 Stationary cycle
800 Recreation (Golf, Fishing, Concert)
1216 Clothing
8895 Jewelry
9100 Payoff of auto loan
17,500 (interest in automobile)

“The last item involving the automobile is unresolved. Mr. McGinley and I purchased a vehicle together, but as I am now enjoying exclusive use and possession of this vehicle, I am treating it as a very generous gift and have listed it in Part V,” Judge Kane declares.

Telephoned at their offices, neither Judge Kane nor McGinley responded with a comment about the listed gifts, or their relationship.

We were instead referred by a secretary in Judge Kane’s chambers to the federal court’s Office of Financial Disclosure.

Habeus corpus: Beyoncé advises, ‘put a ring on it’

Richard Carelli, spokeman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, explained that the law requires federal judges to disclose “anything of value over $335 from a non-family member.”

Gifts to judges from spouses or fiancés are exempt from reports, Carelli said, but not gifts from others.

“It’s pretty much summed up by that Beyoncé song, ‘Put a Ring on It,'” Carelli explained.

Carelli says that the financial disclosure of federal judges was mandated by Congress in the Ethics in Government Acts of the 1970s.

Judge Kane’s report for 2009 has yet to be published by the court.

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