Tag Archives: selective and vindictive prosecution

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.