IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE

DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Andrew J. Ostrowski, and Pennsylvania : CIVIL ACTION

Civil Rights Law Network, : NO.
Plaintiffs :
:
v. :
:
Paul Killion; Robert Fulton; Supreme :
Court of Pennsylvania; Supreme Court :
Disciplinary Board; Brian Cali; Deon :
Turner; Robert Snook; Capitol Police : DECLARATORY AND
Officer Sloan; John/Jane Does 1-25, : INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, Andrew J. Ostrowski, personally and d/b/a

the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network, and in support of his Complaint

before this Court, avers as follows:

1. This is a Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, and for

damages, arising out of a course of conduct engaged in by the Defendants against

Plaintiff, in his own right, and as the known client, colleague, and friend of Don

Bailey. Plaintiff is one of many clients of Don Bailey who have been, and stand to

continue to be, damaged and injured as a result of the course of conduct set forth

herein. This latter aspect of the claim is that as to which the request for injunctive

relief is directed. An appropriate motion will be filed.

 2. This action arises under the Civil rights Act of 1871, as amended, 42

U.S.C. § 1983, and jurisdiction in this Court exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

and 1343. While venue is appropriate in this Court, there is no question that the

case should not remain before any Judge of the Middle District, and there is some

question as to whether this case can be heard by any Judge in the Third Circuit.

Indeed, given the nature of the matters to be raised through these proceedings,

there will remain some inherent appearance of bias in any court that considers

these issues. It is an unfortunate state of affairs, and Plaintiff has no choice but to

trust that the case will be properly assigned in the judicial system of the United

States. An appropriate motion will be filed, if necessary.

3. The gravamen of this case arises from disciplinary proceedings

pending against Don Bailey, a licensed Pennsylvania attorney, and the pattern of

conduct relating to those proceedings, and, more broadly, the harms being caused

to citizens from across the country as a result of the shortcomings revealed through

the Bailey disciplinary proceedings. There is an immense record of these

proceedings, much of which is pending in the public record at the Supreme Court

Disciplinary Board, No 11 D.B. 2010. As a result of these proceedings, Bailey’s

Pennsylvania license was suspended as of October 2, 2013. There are parallel, for

lack of a better word, proceedings pending in the United States District Court for

the Middle District of Pennsylvania. There have been a series of mass recusals of
Middle District Judges from Mr. Bailey’s cases and proceedings. They are

relevant now, and will become increasingly relevant, in varying particulars, as

these matters proceed, parties are added, and/or John and Jane Does identified.

4. This case proceeds from the premise that Mr. Bailey has done nothing

whatsoever to warrant the ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him. He has

not written or spoken one word or combinations of words, filed one document,

committed any act of neglect, misfeasance, malfeasance, and/or nonfeasance, or

otherwise engaged in any act that violates or would violate the Rules of

Professional Conduct. As such, Plaintiff submits that every act in furtherance of

the disciplinary proceedings by the defendants has been unlawful, or, at least, not

in pursuit of a lawful objective. This is the core allegation of this Complaint, it

mirrors, in some respects, the assertions for which Mr. Bailey is being disciplined.

It is the context within which the violations alleged herein have occurred.

5. Mr. Bailey has raised, and is being subjected to disciplinary

proceedings for raising, claims of judicial misconduct – these allegations of

misconduct comprise the entire basis of the charges against him. Mr. Bailey had a

professional obligation to raise the claims of judicial misconduct, and all witnesses

in his proceedings had a general duty, as responsible citizens, to assist him in all

efforts toward bringing those matters to light, and, of course, protected First and

Fourteenth Amendment rights in participating in those efforts.

 6. Plaintiff, Andrew J. Ostrowski, is a suspended Pennsylvania attorney,

address 4311 N. Sixth Street, Harrisburg, PA. While Plaintiff has, at all times,

accepted responsibility for certain admitted professional failings that led to his

discipline, and continues to do so, circumstances arose that revealed mitigating

evidence that should have been available to Ostrowski. Ostrowski petitioned the

Supreme Court, and Supreme Court disciplinary Board to reopen the old

proceedings, mitigate his discipline, and return him to practice immediately, and

filed parallel petitions with the United States District Court for the Middle District

of Pennsylvania, but the state court petitions were denied without any hearings

evidence, or substantive discussions whatsoever, and the Middle District petition

was denied after a hearing on the grounds that Ostrowski’s writings on the

Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network blog, and videos and even lawsuits related

thereto, wherein he was critical of efforts regarding the Don Bailey disciplinary

case, disqualified him from being returned to the practice of law. These

developments parallel the proceedings against Bailey, and reveal that Ostrowski’s

initial suspension and disciplinary proceedings had the same motivations at theor

origins. Ostrowski is currently eligible for reinstatement, his period of suspension

having expired in February, 2011. He was a witness in the disciplinary

proceedings, and a client of Mr. Bailey as well.

 7. The Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network is an organization

founded by Ostrowski in or around 2010, and of which he is the principal and

director, and includes members from across the country. The purpose of the

organization is to work to provide equal access to justice under the law, focusing

specifically, and primarily, on court corruption, judicial misconduct, the regulation

of the practice of law, structural causes for the deficiencies in the fair and effective

access to justice, and policies and proposals to promote reform in the American

judicial system, at both state and federal levels.

8. Defendant, Paul Killion, is Chief Counsel for the Disciplinary Board,

and Defendant Robert Fulton is a staff attorney. They are the prosecutors in the

charges against Don Bailey. Killion is also involved in the efforts concerning

Ostrowski, as set forth herein.

9. Defendant, Pennsylvania Supreme Court is being sued because,

pursuant to Article 5, Section 10 (c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Supreme

Court has exclusive executive, legislative, and judicial authority over all matters

relating to the practice of law, including attorney discipline. Plaintiff seeks a

declaration that Article 5, Section 10 (c) violates the federal separation of powers

doctrine, and is a violation of the United States constitution Article IV guarantee of

a republican form of government. Plaintiffs have standing in this regard due being

a client of Don Bailey, a suspended Pennsylvania attorney, still subject to the rules
of the Supreme Court, and with imminent interests at stake, and an organization of

concerned citizens involved in cases before the courts, and subject to the imminent

loss of rights by having to deal with the courts under the circumstances related

herein. An appropriate motion for declaratory relief will be filed.

10. Defendant Supreme Court Disciplinary Board is an arm of the

Supreme Court, and is operated under authority granted by Article 5, Section 10

(c). It has acted at all times during these proceedings out of compliance with its

required composition, specifically, it has not had the required two non-attorney

members, and the one member is a relative of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice

Max Baer. Justice Baer has recused himself from all matters related to Mr.

Bailey’s disciplinary proceedings, though his reasons have not been disclosed. He

is also believed to be related by marriage to likely Jane Doe Defendant Patti

Bednarik, former staff attorney for the Disciplinary Board. The John/Jane Doe

Defendant may include individuals associated with the Disciplinary Board, acting

in their official and personal capacities.

11. Defendant Brian Cali is a Pennsylvania attorney, and presiding as

Chairman over the Hearing Committee in the first-phase disciplinary proceedings

against Mr. Bailey. Cali is now a member of the Supreme court Disciplinary

Board.
 12. Defendants Deon Turner and Robert Snook are, upon information and

belief, employees of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. They are known

as “tipstaffs” for said Court.

13. Defendant Officer Sloan is, upon information and belief, a

Pennsylvania Department of General Services, Act 120 certified, police officer,

with the Capitol Police.

14. Defendants Turner, Snook, and Sloan are sued reluctantly, as

Plaintiffs believes that they themselves are, in a sense, victims of the corrupt use of

the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to carry out unlawful political agendas.

Plaintiff has known Defendants Turner and Snook to see them for years, as a

somewhat frequent practitioner before the Commonwealth Court. They have

always conducted themselves dutifully and professionally, and never mistreated

plaintiff. Defendant Sloan, also, is known by sight to Plaintiff, and he, as well, has

always been courteous and professional, as have all Capitol Police Officers, some

of whom Plaintiff has represented over the years. Plaintiff believes, however, that

the admirable loyalty and faithful service these men have shown has been

exploited by certain of the Defendants, Killion, Fulton, Cali, and, one or more of

the John/Jane Does, to have them mistreat many persons, including Plaintiff, as

part of the corrupt effort to get Don Bailey, and hurt and harm his clients. They are
sued, however, because they have unequivocally violated the Plaintiff Ostrowski’s

rights.

15. Mr. Cali is believed to be, or to have been, under federal investigation

for his role in an ankle-bracelet business, believed to somehow be connected to the

“kids-for-cash” scandal in Luzerne County. Killion is believed to have been

involved in the kids-for-cash investigation as Chief Disciplinary Counsel. He is

alleged to have deliberately failed to perform his duties in the interest of the public

in connection with that matter, leaving the true nature of the problems that allow

such scandals to exist to continue to hurt and harm American citizens, as alleged

herein.

16. On August 12, 2011, Plaintiff Ostrowski testified during the so-called

“hearings” on the discipline against Mr. Bailey. Plaintiff sets the word hearings off

in quotes because that is what they were called by others. They were not hearings

in any constitutional due process sense. Plaintiff testified truthfully and honestly in

every respect during these proceedings, but was repeatedly, rudely,

unprofessionally, and deliberately, in furtherance of the unlawful agenda, as set

forth herein, cut off and prevented and limited in his ability to respond fully and

completely. This was carried out primarily by Defendants Fulton and Cali at the

time, but is believed to have been part of a plan in which Killion was involved.

This was a violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.

 17. Since the initial proceedings, both Killion and Fulton have directly

expressed retaliatory animus against the Plaintiff for his testimony during the

August, 12, 2011 proceedings.

18. Also, during the course of those proceedings, Defendant Snook

specifically engaged in menacing behavior intended to intimidate Plaintiff and

coerce him into not testifying freely and openly. Snook stared and sneered at the

Plaintiff as he testified, and he was clearly reading the verbal and non-verbal

signals of Defendants Cali and Fulton.

19. Another one of Mr. Bailey’s witnesses, Stephen Conklin, also a

known client and friend of Don Bailey, was specifically threatened By Defendant

Snook with arrest for disorderly conduct during his truthful and honest testimony.

Mr. Conklin was mistreated and obstructed from giving testimony much like the

Plaintiff was, and other witnesses.

20. During Conklin’s testimony, Snook specifically pointed to other

unknown Capitol Police Officers who were present in the courtroom, and said “that

is why they are here,” believed to mean to arrest witnesses in the bogus

proceedings against Don Bailey as part of a pattern and practice of using the

authority of the courts to threaten and intimidate American citizens to carry out

their illicit political agendas.

 21. Upon information and belief, the proceedings against Don Bailey have

been largely orchestrated by and/or between Killion, Fulton, Cali, and certain

John/Jane Doe Defendants. Specifically, in regard to this case, they are believed to

have orchestrated the so-called security environment to make it harassing and

intimidating.

22. Because of the nature of these proceedings (federal judges being the

only complaining witnesses in state disciplinary proceedings), unique access was

required to arrange the proceedings, access only likely available to someone such

as Killion, Fulton, and/or others within the attorney disciplinary arm of the courts.

In fact, it is believed that the federal courts and their authorities, some of whom

are, or will be, John/Jane Doe Defendants, engaged in planning with the state

defendants, Killion, Fulton, Cali, and/or others, in arranging for the proceedings.

The proceedings are in reality those of the Supreme Court, but they were held in a

Commonwealth Court courtroom, attended by Commonwealth Court, non-law

enforcement staff, with security provided through the Commonwealth Capitol

Police. Federal law enforcement personnel were also believed to have been in the

Court or courthouse for the August 11-12 proceedings as well.

23. Upon information and belief, the proceedings were arranged to create

an intimidating environment, with the specific intent of suppressing open and

honest testimony by witnesses, to conceal the abundant evidence of judicial

misconduct that exists to substantiate everything Bailey as ever said about such

issues, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the Plaintiff,

and many others. The additional abuses suffered by Mr. Bailey during the

proceedings, i.e., the wholesale deprivation of due process rights, in a proceeding

by lawyers and the courts for lawyers and the courts, is clear proof that they have

been engineered to reach a pre-determined conclusion. All conduct alleged herein

is a part of that pattern of unlawful conduct.

24. Upon information and belief, neither defendants Snook nor Turner

have powers of arrest; their duties are ministerial, and do not involve courtroom

security.

25. Plaintiff has been the primary contributor to the Pennsylvania Civil

Rights Law Network, www.pennsylvaniacivilrightslawnetwork.com, a website and

organization devoted to promoting equal access to justice for all Americans, and

focusing significantly on the proceedings against Don Bailey, as referenced herein.

Plaintiff has made many relevant statements of fact on that website, which is

incorporated herein by reference in its entirety as being of evidentiary value.

Plaintiff has, in effect, accused Defendants Killion and Fulton of engaging in

criminal behavior in connection with the disciplinary proceedings against Don

Bailey, and Plaintiff is ready, willing, and able to back up any and all claims made

therein.
 26. Plaintiff also specifically submitted a disciplinary complaint against

Defendants Killion and Fulton for their activities in connection with these

proceedings, and has expressed himself personally to all of the Middle District

Judges about the Bailey disciplinary proceedings.

27. At some point in early 2012, attorney Sam Stretton, who was, for a

brief time, counsel for Plaintiff in his disciplinary proceedings, appeared at the

office of Plaintiff, which is also the law office of Don Bailey. Stretton told

Plaintiff that he should apply for his reinstatement, and that Stretton could “help”

him get it back, while also telling Plaintiff that Defendant Fulton and other

disciplinary counsel staff, believed to include Defendant Cali, were angered at

Plaintiff for his August 12, 2011 truthful testimony, and that they were “gunning”

for Plaintiff. During that testimony, Plaintiff directed inquiry to Cali as to whether

he was still under federal investigation. Cali did not respond. Stretton also

specifically told Plaintiff that he would improve his chances of getting his law

license back if he “took down” the PCRLN site.

28. In March, 2010, right around the time that Plaintiff was going through

his disciplinary proceedings, Stretton warned Plaintiff to be careful because Judge

Jones of the Middle District was in contact with the Disciplinary Counsel, believed

to be Fulton and/or Killion, encouraging them to “do something about” Plaintiff so

he could not “help Bailey,” or words very close to that effect. Upon information
and belief, this statement by Judge Jones was part of a long-term plan to go after

the law license of Don Bailey, and Jones and others knew or believed that Plaintiff

was the only attorney who would appear and vigorously defend Bailey before the

Disciplinary Board was Plaintiff.

29. Upon information and belief, Killion and Fulton are known by federal

judges Jones and Conner to be, in the common parlance, i.e., lackeys, and their

eagerness to impress and ingratiate themselves to federal judges regardless of the

truth or ethics could be exploited and used in the agenda to get Bailey, as it has

been through the present.

30. A proceeding was held on June 20, 2012 before Cali and the Hearing

Committee in furtherance of the Bailey disciplinary matters. This proceeding was

also held in a Commonwealth Court courtroom, and was attended this time by

Defendant Turner, as tipstaff, or whatever his role was. The proceeding was not

attended by Mr. Bailey, who was unavailable for medical reasons, and was

attended by Sam Stretton, this time as Counsel for Mr. Bailey.

31. During this proceeding, Turner seemed to be focused significantly on

the Plaintiff, and made one or two remarks or gestures directed at the Plaintiff

during the proceeding. Plaintiff may have appeared exasperated at the way these

proceedings progressed, with Stretton demonstrably acting contrary to the interests

of Mr. Bailey, allowing evidence to be received and comments to be made without

questioning them, or objecting to it, and making comments detrimental to the

interests of Mr. Bailey himself, but Plaintiff did not speak out or disrupt these

proceedings in any way.

32. Plaintiff attended an additional proceeding in these matters scheduled

for September 5, 2012, again in the same Commonwealth Court courtroom as the

prior proceedings, and this time again attended by Defendant Turner. There was

an increased security presence in the courthouse for this proceeding as well.

33. Upon entry into the courtroom, Plaintiff, one of perhaps 20 attendees

of the proceeding, noted that Turner appeared to be observing Plaintiff more so

than the other attendees in the courtroom.

34. At one point, cognizant of the past actions by the Commonwealth

Court personnel during these disciplinary proceedings, Plaintiff asked Mr. Turner

whether he was an employee of the Commonwealth Court, which was confirmed

by Turner, and, when asked what rules or regulations govern the scope of his

powers and authority, Turner responded that they are not in writing, and that he

enforced the rules as he saw them, or words to that effect. This all occurred off-

the-record before the proceedings commenced.

35. After the proceedings began, Turner positioned himself close to the

Plaintiff in the courtroom, and kept Plaintiff under what appeared to be near
constant observation. At no time did Plaintiff in any way speak out or act out to in

any way disrupt the proceedings.

36. At one point during the proceedings, Plaintiff looked at Turner to see

Turner leering at Plaintiff in a very menacing manner. Plaintiff gave Mr. Turner

an exaggerated glare in response, attempting to non-verbally communicate his

displeasure with being stared at and intimidated with the repeated silly glares of

Turner.

37. Immediately after Plaintiff looked at Turner, Turner interrupted the

proceedings, and said words to the effect of “that’s it, you’re out of here” to the

Plaintiff, whereupon Turner left his seat, and placed his hands, or one hand, upon

the Plaintiff. Officer Sloan, who was not in the courtroom the entire time, to

Plaintiff’s belief, also appeared next to Plaintiff in the courtroom, with Turner, and

is believed to also have placed a hand or hands upon the Plaintiff, and they both

escorted Plaintiff from the courtroom.

38. Plaintiff inquired peaceably as to what he had done wrong, and does

not recall any answer, even looking to Cali for some assistance or something, but

no one said anything, and Plaintiff was escorted from the room.

39. Upon information and belief, after Plaintiff was escorted from the

courtroom, Cali said that he did not observe Plaintiff do anything untoward, and he

at no time gave any instructions during the proceeding regarding the Plaintiff’s
arrest and removal from the courtroom. Incidentally, Plaintiff was directly in

Cali’s line of sight every time he looked at Bailey, as Plaintiff was seated in the

first row directly over Bailey’s right shoulder.

40. Outside of the courtroom, Plaintiff asked Defendant Sloan what he

had done wrong, to which Sloan, the only officer believed to have powers of arrest,

indicated that he did not know what was alleged to have occurred, and that he was

just following the instructions of others.

41. The actions of Defendants Turner and Sloan constituted an arrest,

without probable cause, and a seizure of the Plaintiff, in violation of plaintiff’s

rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

42. In addition, the actions of Turner and Sloan were taken as part of the

unlawful plan to “get” Don Bailey’s law license, orchestrated principally by Paul

Killion, and others, believed to include Middle District Judge Christopher Conner

through whatever lawful or unlawful means necessary, which specifically included

plans to try to harass and intimidate witnesses against Bailey, all in violation of

Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights through a conscience-shocking pattern of

conduct directed to silencing Mr. Bailey, the Plaintiff, and others, particularly

litigants of the courts, who are involved in cases that reveal or may reveal

corruption by Pennsylvania and federal government officials.

 43. In addition, as a client of Don Bailey, Plaintiff has had his

associational and expressive rights under the First Amendment infringed, and

stands to suffer irreparable harm to his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights

injury through the unlawful plan to get Don Bailey’s law license.

44. Furthermore, the use by the state and federal disciplinary authorities

of Ostrowski’s writings on the PCRLN to oppose his readmission to practice is a

grave First Amendment violation, which is permitted by the rules of professional

conduct and unconstitutional standards that have been permitted to exist due to the

unconstitutional climate that pervades the practice of law as a result of Article 5,

section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

COUNT ONE
Plaintiff v. All Defendants

45. Paragraphs 1 through 44 are incorporated herein by reference in their

entirety.

46. The above actions of all Defendants, including as yet unnamed John

and/or Jane Does, and covering the entire course of conduct involving the Bailey

disciplinary proceedings, the Ostrowski proceedings, before those proceedings

were filed, while they were being planned, and through the present, effected, and

continue to effect, a violation of Plaintiffs’ First, Fourth, and Fourteenth

Amendment rights, along with similar rights of many, many others, mostly past
and present clients of Don Bailey and the Plaintiff, all of whom are suffering

ongoing violations of their rights, and imminent future violations of their rights.

47. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants,

Plaintiff has suffered a deprivation of his constitutional rights, as aforesaid, and has

additionally suffered damages actionable at law, including actionable pecuniary

losses, as well as general compensatory non-economic damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for

damages in an un-liquidated amount including all compensatory and punitive

damages necessary to address the wrongs described herein, plus the costs of this

litigation, interest and reasonable attorney’s fees, together with appropriate

affirmative injunctive relief and such other legal and/or equitable relief as is just.

COUNT TWO
Plaintiff v. Defendants Turner and Sloan, Killion, Cali, and Fulton

48. Paragraphs 1 through 47 are incorporated herein by reference in their

entirety.

49. The above actions of defendants, specifically those actions that

occurred during the September 5, 2012 proceedings, constituted an unlawful arrest

and seizure of the Plaintiff Ostrowski, and a violation of his First, Fourth, and

Fourteenth Amendment rights.

 50. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants,

Plaintiff has suffered a deprivation of his constitutional rights, as aforesaid, and has

additionally suffered damages actionable at law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for

damages in an un-liquidated amount including all compensatory and punitive

damages necessary to address the wrongs described herein, plus the costs of this

litigation, interest and reasonable attorney’s fees, together with appropriate

affirmative injunctive relief and such other legal and/or equitable relief as is just.

COUNT THREE
Plaintiff v. Defendant Pennsylvania Supreme Court for Declaratory Relief

51. Paragraphs 1 through 50 are incorporated herein by reference in their

entirety.

52. As aforesaid, all proceedings in this mater are being pursued pursuant

to the authority invested in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Article 5, Section

10 (c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Article 5, Section 10 (c) of the

Pennsylvania vests all legislative, executive, and judicial functions in the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court in matters of attorney discipline and the conduct of

the business of the courts, in violation of federal constitutional separation of

powers principals, and of the guarantee of Article IV of the United States

Constitution of a republican form of government, and Plaintiff seeks a declaration

from this Court that the Pennsylvania provision is repugnant to the United States

Constitution, and must be declared so. An appropriate motion will follow.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for

damages in an un-liquidated amount including all compensatory and punitive

damages necessary to address the wrongs described herein, plus the costs of this

litigation, interest and reasonable attorney’s fees, together with appropriate

affirmative injunctive relief and such other legal and/or equitable relief as is just.

COUNT FOUR
Plaintiff v. Defendant Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Supreme Court
Disciplinary Board, Killion, Fulton, and Cali for Declaratory and Injunctive
Relief

53. Paragraphs 1 through 52 are incorporated herein by reference in their

entirety.

54. The course of conduct alleged as aforesaid constitutes a past and

ongoing violation of the rights of the Plaintiff and many others. It is plainly and

patently unlawful and repugnant to the United States Constitution, and of all

constraints on the power of public officials and public servants under our

constitutions. All conditions precedent to the grant of injunctive relief, directing

that these proceedings be terminated, on habeas corpus principles, have been met,

and an appropriate motion will follow.

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for

damages in an un-liquidated amount including all compensatory and punitive

damages necessary to address the wrongs described herein, plus the costs of this

litigation, interest and reasonable attorney’s fees, together with appropriate

affirmative injunctive relief and such other legal and/or equitable relief as is just.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________
Andrew J. Ostrowski
4311 North Sixth Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 221-9500
Dated: January 8, 2018