In Re: Special Prosecutor, Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury
This text of In Re: Special Prosecutor, Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury (In Re: Special Prosecutor, Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
IN RE: SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, : No. 2 MM 2015 THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE : INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : : : :
ORDER
PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 26th day of August, 2015, upon the request of the supervising
judge for removal of the seal from all matters involving the 35th Statewide Investigating
Grand Jury and the investigation of Attorney General Kathleen Kane which have been
lodged in this Court, save for grand jury materials such as testimony, exhibits, and in
camera proceedings, and based on the supervising judge’s assurance that there are no
present grand jury secrecy concerns relative to such unsealing, it is hereby ORDERED
that the seal is lifted upon such terms. Filed in Supreme Gout JAN 7 2014
Middle UNSEALED PER ORDER OF THE COURT DATED AUGUST 26, 2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: : SUPREME COURT No.
GRAND JURY DOCKETS: SUPREME COURT OF PA SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, No. 176 MD 2012 THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE • MONTGOMERY CO. COURT INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : No. 2644 MD 2012
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
AND NOW,this 7th day ofJanuary,2015,comes Patrick R.Reese, by counsel,
William A. Fetterhoff, Esq., and presents the following:
JURISDICTION
1. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has jurisdiction pursuant to the
Judiciary Article ofthe Constitution ofthe Commonwealth ofPennsylvania, Article
5, Section 2(jurisdiction of the Supreme Court); Article 5, Section 10 (supervisory
authority ofthe Supreme Court); and the first clause of Section 1 ofthe Schedule to
the Judiciary Article (power and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court); and further Received In Supreme Court
JAN 0 7 2015
Middle pursuant to the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §721(3) (original jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in quo warranto); and §726 (extraordinary jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court); as implemented by Pa.R.A.P. 3307 (pleadings in original actions)
and 3309(King's Bench matters).
APPLICANT
2. The Applicant is Supervisory Special Agent Patrick R.Reese, an employee
of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General(OAG). Special Agent Reese is a
member ofthe Protection Detail for Attorney General Kathleen Kane. Among other
duties, Special Agent Reese is a driver for Attorney General Kane. Special Agent
Reese has an office in the OAG Scranton Regional Office,417 Lackawanna Avenue,
Scranton, PA 18510, and resides at 939 Meade Street, Dunmore,PA 18512.
3. On January 7,2015 Special Agent Reese,through counsel,accepted service
of a subpoena issued by Special Prosecutor Thomas E. Carluccio. The subpoena
requires Special Agent Reese to appear and testify on January 12, 2015 before the
Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury sitting in Montgomery County.
4. The Applicant, by virtue of having been served with a subpoena to appear
and testify, has standing to challenge the legality ofthe office of Special Prosecutor
appointed to the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury. Gwinn v. Kane, 19
Pa.Cmw1th. 243, 339 A.2d 838, 840-843 (1975), disposition affirmed, 465 Pa. 269,
2 348 A.2 900(Pa. 1975).
FACTUAL BACKROUND
5. On June 6, 2014 an article appeared in the Philadelphia Daily News
concerning a 2009 grand jury investigation of.T. Whyatt Mondesire,a former head of
the NAACP in Philadelphia, and Harriet Garrett, one ofMr.Mondesire's employees.
Exhibit A.
6. The 2009 statewide investigating grand jury had been convened and
impaneled in Montgomery County.
7. The Philadelphia Daily News article cited two documentary sources: First,
a 2009 memo written by then-Deputy Attorney General William Davis,Jr., addressed
to then-ChiefDeputy Attorney General Frank Fina and then-Senior Deputy Attorney
General E. Marc Costanzo; and Second, a 2014 transcript of a taped interview by
David Peifer, Director of the OAG Bureau of Special Investigations, of Michael
Miletto, the OAG special agent who had earlier investigated Mr. Mondesire and Ms.
Garrett. Exhibit A.
8. Following publication ofthe June 6,2014 Philadelphia Daily News article,
a Special Prosecutor(Thomas E. Carluccio,Esq., an attorney in private practice) was
appointed and authorized to utilize the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand
Jury to investigate the alleged "leak" of alleged "grand jury material" by employees
3 of the OAG,or other persons, to the Philadelphia Daily News.
9. The written communications, applications, petitions, orders, notice of
submission, and all other documents underlying the appointment of the Special
Prosecutor and submission of this investigation to the grand jury are under seal. It
has been publicly reported that the appointment of the Special Prosecutor in this
matter was authorized by the Supreme Court and by Order of Supervising Judge of
the Grand Jury William R. Carpenter. Exhibits B, C, and D.
BASIS FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
10. The Investigating Grand Jury Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§4541 et seq., does not
provide for appointment of any special prosecutor.
11. The Commonwealth Attorneys Act, 71 P.S. §§732-101 et seq., does not
provide for the appointment of any special prosecutor.
12. The sole provisions in Pennsylvania law for appointment of a special
prosecutor apply only in the event that an elected county District Attorney has been
charged with crime or wilful and gross negligence in office. County Code, 16 P.S.
§§1405-1406. See similar provisions at 16 P.S. §7710 concerning counties of the
first class; and 16 P.S. §§4405-4406 concerning counties of the second class.
13. Pa.R.A.P. 3331 provides for review by the Supreme Court of"An order
relating to the supersession ofa district attorney by an Attorney General or by a court,
4 or to the appointment, supervision, administration or operation of a special
prosecutor." This rule does not create any independent substantive authority for the
appointment of any special prosecutor, and must therefore be construed to apply
solely to cases arising under the above-cited provisions of the County Code.
14. The consideration of a special prosecutor in Dauphin County Grand Jury
Investigation Proceedings(No. 3), 322 Pa. 358,2 A.2d 809(1938), was held to have
been authorized by a 1929 Legislative enactment which was repealed upon passage
of the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, supra, in 1980. Former section 907 of the
Administrative Code of1929,71 P.S. §297,authorized President Judges ofthe Courts
ofCommon Pleas to request in writing that the Attorney General intervene in criminal
matters and supersede the local District Attorney. See statutory history:
Commonwealth v. Harris, 501 Pa. 178, 460 A.2d 747, 751, fn. 1 (1983). Thus,
reliance upon the 1938 case by the Lackawanna County Court in In re: County
Investigating Grand Jury VIII, 2003, 2005 WL 3985351 (Pa.Com.P1. 2005)for the
general proposition that Pennsylvania courts have traditional or inherent authority to
appoint special prosecutors, was misplaced. See section II(C)ofthat Opinion,p.9-10,
titled "Appointment of Special Prosecutor."
15. Another Lackawanna County grand jury later gave rise to a proceeding on
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
IN RE: SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, : No. 2 MM 2015 THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE : INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : : : :
ORDER
PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 26th day of August, 2015, upon the request of the supervising
judge for removal of the seal from all matters involving the 35th Statewide Investigating
Grand Jury and the investigation of Attorney General Kathleen Kane which have been
lodged in this Court, save for grand jury materials such as testimony, exhibits, and in
camera proceedings, and based on the supervising judge’s assurance that there are no
present grand jury secrecy concerns relative to such unsealing, it is hereby ORDERED
that the seal is lifted upon such terms. Filed in Supreme Gout JAN 7 2014
Middle UNSEALED PER ORDER OF THE COURT DATED AUGUST 26, 2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: : SUPREME COURT No.
GRAND JURY DOCKETS: SUPREME COURT OF PA SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, No. 176 MD 2012 THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE • MONTGOMERY CO. COURT INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : No. 2644 MD 2012
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
AND NOW,this 7th day ofJanuary,2015,comes Patrick R.Reese, by counsel,
William A. Fetterhoff, Esq., and presents the following:
JURISDICTION
1. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has jurisdiction pursuant to the
Judiciary Article ofthe Constitution ofthe Commonwealth ofPennsylvania, Article
5, Section 2(jurisdiction of the Supreme Court); Article 5, Section 10 (supervisory
authority ofthe Supreme Court); and the first clause of Section 1 ofthe Schedule to
the Judiciary Article (power and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court); and further Received In Supreme Court
JAN 0 7 2015
Middle pursuant to the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §721(3) (original jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in quo warranto); and §726 (extraordinary jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court); as implemented by Pa.R.A.P. 3307 (pleadings in original actions)
and 3309(King's Bench matters).
APPLICANT
2. The Applicant is Supervisory Special Agent Patrick R.Reese, an employee
of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General(OAG). Special Agent Reese is a
member ofthe Protection Detail for Attorney General Kathleen Kane. Among other
duties, Special Agent Reese is a driver for Attorney General Kane. Special Agent
Reese has an office in the OAG Scranton Regional Office,417 Lackawanna Avenue,
Scranton, PA 18510, and resides at 939 Meade Street, Dunmore,PA 18512.
3. On January 7,2015 Special Agent Reese,through counsel,accepted service
of a subpoena issued by Special Prosecutor Thomas E. Carluccio. The subpoena
requires Special Agent Reese to appear and testify on January 12, 2015 before the
Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury sitting in Montgomery County.
4. The Applicant, by virtue of having been served with a subpoena to appear
and testify, has standing to challenge the legality ofthe office of Special Prosecutor
appointed to the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury. Gwinn v. Kane, 19
Pa.Cmw1th. 243, 339 A.2d 838, 840-843 (1975), disposition affirmed, 465 Pa. 269,
2 348 A.2 900(Pa. 1975).
FACTUAL BACKROUND
5. On June 6, 2014 an article appeared in the Philadelphia Daily News
concerning a 2009 grand jury investigation of.T. Whyatt Mondesire,a former head of
the NAACP in Philadelphia, and Harriet Garrett, one ofMr.Mondesire's employees.
Exhibit A.
6. The 2009 statewide investigating grand jury had been convened and
impaneled in Montgomery County.
7. The Philadelphia Daily News article cited two documentary sources: First,
a 2009 memo written by then-Deputy Attorney General William Davis,Jr., addressed
to then-ChiefDeputy Attorney General Frank Fina and then-Senior Deputy Attorney
General E. Marc Costanzo; and Second, a 2014 transcript of a taped interview by
David Peifer, Director of the OAG Bureau of Special Investigations, of Michael
Miletto, the OAG special agent who had earlier investigated Mr. Mondesire and Ms.
Garrett. Exhibit A.
8. Following publication ofthe June 6,2014 Philadelphia Daily News article,
a Special Prosecutor(Thomas E. Carluccio,Esq., an attorney in private practice) was
appointed and authorized to utilize the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand
Jury to investigate the alleged "leak" of alleged "grand jury material" by employees
3 of the OAG,or other persons, to the Philadelphia Daily News.
9. The written communications, applications, petitions, orders, notice of
submission, and all other documents underlying the appointment of the Special
Prosecutor and submission of this investigation to the grand jury are under seal. It
has been publicly reported that the appointment of the Special Prosecutor in this
matter was authorized by the Supreme Court and by Order of Supervising Judge of
the Grand Jury William R. Carpenter. Exhibits B, C, and D.
BASIS FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
10. The Investigating Grand Jury Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§4541 et seq., does not
provide for appointment of any special prosecutor.
11. The Commonwealth Attorneys Act, 71 P.S. §§732-101 et seq., does not
provide for the appointment of any special prosecutor.
12. The sole provisions in Pennsylvania law for appointment of a special
prosecutor apply only in the event that an elected county District Attorney has been
charged with crime or wilful and gross negligence in office. County Code, 16 P.S.
§§1405-1406. See similar provisions at 16 P.S. §7710 concerning counties of the
first class; and 16 P.S. §§4405-4406 concerning counties of the second class.
13. Pa.R.A.P. 3331 provides for review by the Supreme Court of"An order
relating to the supersession ofa district attorney by an Attorney General or by a court,
4 or to the appointment, supervision, administration or operation of a special
prosecutor." This rule does not create any independent substantive authority for the
appointment of any special prosecutor, and must therefore be construed to apply
solely to cases arising under the above-cited provisions of the County Code.
14. The consideration of a special prosecutor in Dauphin County Grand Jury
Investigation Proceedings(No. 3), 322 Pa. 358,2 A.2d 809(1938), was held to have
been authorized by a 1929 Legislative enactment which was repealed upon passage
of the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, supra, in 1980. Former section 907 of the
Administrative Code of1929,71 P.S. §297,authorized President Judges ofthe Courts
ofCommon Pleas to request in writing that the Attorney General intervene in criminal
matters and supersede the local District Attorney. See statutory history:
Commonwealth v. Harris, 501 Pa. 178, 460 A.2d 747, 751, fn. 1 (1983). Thus,
reliance upon the 1938 case by the Lackawanna County Court in In re: County
Investigating Grand Jury VIII, 2003, 2005 WL 3985351 (Pa.Com.P1. 2005)for the
general proposition that Pennsylvania courts have traditional or inherent authority to
appoint special prosecutors, was misplaced. See section II(C)ofthat Opinion,p.9-10,
titled "Appointment of Special Prosecutor."
15. Another Lackawanna County grand jury later gave rise to a proceeding on
the issue of whether the Pennsylvania Shield Law, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5942, protects a
5 newspaper reporter from compelled disclosure ofthe source of a grand jury leak. In
Castellani v. The Scranton Times, 956 A.2d 937 (Pa. 2008), the Supreme Court,
while addressing the Shield Law,mentioned in passing that the Supervising Judge of
the Grand Jury had appointed a Special Prosecutor to investigate a leak, but as the
validity of the appointment was not at issue, no authority for the appointment was
cited.
16. In In Re Dauphin County Fourth Investigating Grand Jury, 947 A.2d 712
(Pa. 2008), grand jury leaks had been complained of by individuals subject to
investigation. The Supreme Court issued aper curiam Order under the King's Bench
authority of42 Pa.C.S.A. §726,directing the Supervising Judge ofthe Grand Jury "to
consider whether a special prosecutor should be appointed to pursue the
allegations..." No authority in support ofthe contemplated appointment ofa special
prosecutor was cited. Id., 712. Subsequently, a special prosecutor was appointed,
although, again, the later full Opinion by the Supreme Court does not cite any
authority relied upon for the appointment. In Re Dauphin County Fourth
Investigating Grand Jury, 19 A.3d 491 (Pa. 2011).
17 In disapproving the appointment of a special prosecutor by the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas,to supersede the local District Attorney in the
conduct ofa grand jury investigation, outside the terms of71 P.S. §297,the Supreme
6 Court of Pennsylvania expressly held that Pennsylvania courts had no such exta-
statutory authority, and "there is no public office in Pennsylvania known as Special
Prosecutor." Smith v. Gallagher, et al, 408 Pa. 551, 185 A.2d 135,149(1962). The
Supreme Court in Smith pointedly disapproved the proposition that Pennsylvania
courts have inherent independent power to appoint special prosecutors, as follows:
[T]he intervening appellants say that Judge Alessandroni did have the jurisdiction and the authority to order a special grand jury and appoint a special prosecutor. The oral and written arguments submitted in behalf of this thesis, however, lack conviction or even persuasion. They speak vaguely ofinherent authority, common law jurisdiction and traditional powers.
Id., 146; and at length further at 151-154.
18. Although Smith v. Gallagher was decided by the Supreme Court in 1962,
nothing in either the Investigating Grand Jury Act or the Commonwealth Attorneys
Act, both adopted in 1980, has corrected the lack of authority to appoint special
prosecutors vigorously pointed out by Justice Musmanno in 1962. Mere lapse oftime
has not provided new constitutional or statutory authority. Indeed,since repeal of71
P.S. §297 by the Commonwealth Attorneys Act in 1980, 71 P.S. §732-502, no case
has been found at any level of the Pennsylvania judiciary which has cited any
constitutional or statutory authority for the appointment of a special prosecutor.
19. There was no necessity for the appointment of a special prosecutor in this
7 matter, since, according to publicly known facts, several county District Attorneys
had jurisdiction to both investigate any "leak" by the OAG and prosecute any crime
found to have been committed. Such county District Attorneys appear to include, at
a minimum,those serving Montgomery County(site ofthe 2009 grandjury),Dauphin
County (site of the principal office of Attorney General Kane and numerous other
OAG officers and employees), and Philadelphia County (site of the Philadelphia
Daily News). Reinforcing the availability of at least those three counties, the
Investigating Grand Jury Act by its own terms expresses a preference for county
grand juries over multi-county grand juries, unless "the investigation cannot be
adequately performed by an investigating grand jury under section 4543 (relating to
convening county investigating grand jury). 42 Pa.C.S.A. §4544.
20. The argument that the appointment of a special prosecutor was necessary
since the Office of Attorney General would have had a conflict of interest in
investigating itself does not answer either: (1) the complete absence of statutory
authority for such an appointment; or(2)the availability ofseveral alternative county
District Attorneys to whom the investigation could have been referred.
21. The appointment of Special Prosecutor Thomas E. Carluccio, and the
proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury related to any
matter submitted or actions taken by the Special Prosecutor, were and continue to be
8 without legal authority, and null and void ab initio.
WHEREFORE,it is requested that the Supreme Court vacate the original Order
appointing a Special Prosecutor in this matter under the applicable Notice of
Submission or otherwise. It is further requested that the Supreme Court prohibit
enforcement of all subpoenas issued by the Special Prosecutor under the authority of
the Supervising Judge ofthe Grand Jury; and further prohibit issuance of any report
or presentment by the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury based on any
matter submitted to the grand jury by the Special Prosecutor.
Respectfully submitted,
William A. Fetterhoff, s Fetterhoff and Zilli 218 Pine Street Harrisburg,PA 17101 Telephone: 717 232-7722 FAX: 717 233-4965 E-mail: wfetterhoff@live.com PA Supreme Court ID 23148 Attorneyfor Patrick R. Reese
9 State A.G. probed Philly NAACP leader Mondesire's finances 5 year... http://articles.philly.com/2014-06-06/news/50390468_1_memo-whya...
phillyocom Subscriber Services Zheilnquirrr ayes
Home I News I Sports I Entertainment I Business I Food I Lifestyle I Health I Marketplace Collections
State A.G. probed Philly NAACP leader Mondesire's finances 5 years ago Shocking. BY CHRIS BRENNAN, Daily News Staff Writer brennacaphillynews.com, 215-854-5973 French 4 Heart Attack Signs POSTED: June 06, 2014 Video ownahealthyheart.com STATE ATTORNEY General Kathleen Kane is reviewing a 2009 If you do not know These 4 Things grand-jury investigation of J. Whyatt Mondesire, former head of the French, you've got Happen Right Before a NAACP in Philadelphia, and one of his employees, according to ' to see'this brilliant Heart Attack. documents obtained by the Daily News. video before it's gonE What's My Mondesire's employee, Harriet Garrett, and her daughter pleaded You'll be absolutely House Worth? guilty in 2010 to stealing nearly $220,000 in state grant money for a blown away from itl trulia.com job-training program. Garrett was sentenced to a minimum of six See your Home's months in jail and ordered to pay restitution. Her daughter got 18 Play Video 4)0 Market Value Free & It months probation Just Takes Seconds
A 2009 memo written by then-Deputy Attorney General William Davis SHOCKING DISCOVER r Arrest Warrant Jr. says investigators "uncovered what appeared to be questionable Records spending" of state money by Mondesire. persopo.com 1) Type Name - Searcl Kane, a Democrat, is now trying to determine what happened with the Free! 2) See Anyone's Mondesire investigation. Gov. Corbett, a Republican, was the attorney Warrant Records general at the time. Instantly Mondesire, 64, says he was never questioned and denies any financial 2016 wrongdoing. Presidential Poll townhall.com/StrawPoll The 2009 Davis memo detailed for his bosses what had been Which GOP presidentia uncovered about Mondesire and Garrett, who worked at the You'll Never Believe What They , hopeful would be the Philadelphia Sunday Sun, a weekly newspaper Mondesire publishes. best candidate? Vote! Found Hiding in Your Stomach IVidtuj A nonprofit called Next Generation Community Development Corp., 3 Credit Scores which is operated by Mondesire, held a state-government grant for a jobs-training program in 2004 and 2005, but handed it off to Garrett, We Recommend (Free) who ran another nonprofit called Creative Urban Education Systems, freescore360.com View your latest Credit or CUES, according to the Davis memo. The Rev. Carl Fitchett to lead Philly Scores from All 3 NAACP Mondesire was listed as chairman of the CUES board, the memo bureaus in 60 seconds April 18, 2014 fnr noted, while Garrett served as the treasurer for Next Generation's board. Questions over Philly NAACP finances Davis wrote his memo to then-Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank January 24, 2014 Fina and then-Senior Deputy Attorney General E. Marc Costanzo. Board members from NAACP leader's Corbett, as attorney general, named Fina in 2006 to head a new nonprofit sue to see the books public-corruption unit and Costanzo to work on cases for the unit in the June 6, 2014 Philadelphia region.
Fina and Costanzo now work in a similar unit for District Attorney Seth Mondesire's friends-turned-foes get \Ari!hams. access to his books June 12, 2014 In the memo, Davis wrote:
Next Generation's bank-account records, obtained with a grand-jury subpoena, showed deposits of $1.3 million in government grants in a one-year period.
Another $521,000 in the account came from political campaigns, rent payments and the intermingling of money from the Sunday Sun, which is owned and operated by Mondesire, the memo said.
Next Generation paid $2,273 to the Philadelphia Club, a private and exclusive club in Center City.
Next Generation spent "tens of thousands," writing checks to pay Mondesire's American Express bill for "clothes, food, lodging gas and entertainment" and a loan from Mellon Bank. There were also checks written to Mondesire and to "cash." FREE Pocket Knife Annual. Membership for only S25 * Next Generation wrote checks for $169,960 to Charles and Claudia Tasco and their company, C&C Construction.(Charles Tasco is the son
1 of4 .._.411;1z.‘i- 1/3/2015 9:13 AM State A.G. probed Philly NAACP leader Mondesire's finances 5 year... http://articles.philly.com/2014-06-06/news/50390468_1_memo-whya...
of City Councilwoman Marian Tasco, a friend and political ally of Mondesires for more than three decades.)
* $6,431 in CUES money was given to Mondesire for what Garrett called consulting. That type of expense was not allowed, according to the rules of the grant.
In "various correspondence between Garrett and Mondesire discovered by investigators, she questioned payments of more than $70,000 he made to Claudia Tasco.
*CUES paid $1,099 for health insurance for Mondesire.
Davis wanted to question Mondesire - and possibly subpoena him for sworn grand-jury testimony - about Garrett, CUES and Next Generation.
Never questioned Mondesire, a former Inquirer reporter who served as the top aide to the late U.S. Rep. Bill Gray, said no one from the A.G.'s Office ever questioned him.
"We didn't use any money for personal gain," Mondesire said.
He said that he has not seen the A.G. Offices documents and twice declined an offer from the Daily News to review them.
Mondesire said C&C Construction worked on four properties, including the NAACP headquarters and his newspaper office, where the Next Generation non-profit is also located.
"We bought supplies with my American Express card for construction," he said.
"They never asked me a single question back in 2009. We rehabbed the buildings. We spent money buying stuff for the buildings, construction and paying off developers."
Garrett declined to comment about the investigations. Her daughter did not respond to requests for comment.
The May 2010 news release about Garrett's arrest featured Corbett laying out the charges.
Corbett did not respond this week to two questions: Was he briefed on the Mondesire investigation and did he play a role in deciding what happened with that probe?
Mondesire was suspended by the NAACP's national headquarters in April after he feuded publicly with board members about the finances of the local chapter and Next Generation.
Those board members - Sid Booker, Donald "Ducky" Birts and the Rev. Elisha Morris - also were suspended.
Booker and Morris, who say they are still Next Generation board members, are now asking a Common Pleas judge to force Mondesire to show them the nonprofit's financial records.
As a judge considers that request, Kanes staff is reviewing what became of the 2009 Mondesire probe.
David Peifer, who heads the A.G.'s Bureau of Special Investigations, on March 21 interviewed Michael Miletto, the special agent who investigated Garrett and Mondesire.
The Daily News obtained a transcript of that taped interview.
Miletto told Peifer that he subpoenaed Next Generation's bank account, the transcript shows.
"When I did that, I found that there was a whole bunch of money that appeared to me to be donations to the NAACP, not [Mondesire], and they were going into Next Generation's account and they were being used for [Mondesires] lifestyle - much of it," Miletto told Peifer.
Miletto said he was taken off the case after Fina and Costanzo were told about the probe, according to the transcript.
Miletto said "criminal activity was just ignored after that. He added that two accountants who had worked for Mondesire had provided taped statements, with one asking for immunity and the other asking for protection.
Fina and Costanzo declined to comment about the Mondesire investigation, citing the secrecy of grand-jury proceedings.
Davis, now in private practice, also declined to comment, citing the same restriction.
Miletto, who still works for the A.G.'s office, also declined to comment.
Peifer referred questions to Kane's communications staff.
J.J. Abbott, a spokesman for Kane, declined to comment.
The Kane-Fina feud Fina and Costanzo have a complicated and controversial relationship with Kane.
Kane criticized Corbett's tenure as attorney general when she ran for office in 2012, specifically targeting the Penn State child-abuse scandal that sent former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky to prison.
Kanes staff is now conducting an extensive review of that investigation.
Fina led the Sandusky probe.
Kane, on Feb. 5, issued a statement noting that her offices Sandusky review had been underway for one year, adding that delays in the undertaking "will be described in more detail when the report is made public."
A month later, the Inquirer reported that Kane declined to pursue an investigation previously led by Fina and Costanzo, starting in 2010, that used Philadelphia lobbyist Tyron Ali as a confidential informant to tape conversations with four PhiIly state representatives and a former Traffic Court judge, On the tapes, the representatives and judge accept cash or gifts from Ali.
Kane has said Fina dropped 2,033 criminal counts against Ali, who had been charged with stealing $430,000 from a state program, 24 days before she was sworn into office.
She said that "extraordinarily lenienr deal "crippled the chance of this case succeeding in prosecution."
Fina, in a letter published by the Inquirer a week after the first story ran, called on Kane to explain her decision.
2 of 4 1/3/2015 9:13 AM State A.G. probed Philly NAACP leader Mondesire's finances 5 year... http://articles.philly.com/2014-06-06/news/50390468_1_memo-whya...
The Inquirer also published a letter that day from Fina's boss, Williams, critical of Kane.
Kane eventually turned over the Ali case file to Williams, who is now examining whether charges can be brought against the four representatives and the Traffic Court judge, who is currently on trial in an unrelated federal corruption case.
On Twitter: TgChrisBrennanDN Blog: ph.lyiPhillyClout.com
You May Like Sponsored Links by Taboola
Social Security: How To Get $1,000 More a Month Newsmax
Powerful Plastic: The 7 Best Credit Cards for People With Excellent Credit Next Advisor Daily
Kate Middleton's Bizarre Behavior at Event Gets Everyone Talking Stirring Daily
An Extremely Brilliant Way To Pay Off Mortgage Bills.com
Guess Who's About To Go Bankrupt in America [Shocking] Stansberry Research
CNN Money: How Young Millionaires invest CNN Money ( Wealthfront
More From The Web More From Philly.com • Social Security: How To Get $1,000 More a Month • Sheinelle Jones has good news 'Today' (Newsmax) • Phila. police: Man beaten, kidnapped, tattooed • Powerful Plastic: The 7 Best Credit Cards for • Philadelphia entrepreneur finds an opportunity in People With Excellent Credit (Next Advisor Daily) home care for elderly Asians • Kate Middleton's Bizarre Behavior at Event Gets • Challenge to Phila. civil forfeiture law continues Everyone Talking (Stirnng Daily) • Phila.'s new gem: A stroll on the Schuylkill • An Extremely Brilliant Way To Pay Off Mortgage (Bills com)
• Guess Who's About To Go Bankrupt in America [Shocking](Stansberry Research) Promoted Links by Taboola
comments powered by Disqus
Commenting policy l Comments FAQ
Aviation Maintenance fixjets.com Acquire Proper Knowledge & Skill Levels To Get An A&P Mechanic Job!
FEATURED ARTICLES
Nancy Schultz reflects on her A historic collection found in John duPont dies in prison:
3 of 4 1/3/2015 9:13 AM Montco lawyer leading inquiry into whether Kane's office leaked grand jury information -... Page 1 of 3
phillyecom Subscriber Services l Cfic.ilayttirrr
Home 1 News Sports l Entertainment l Business l Food Lifestyle l Health l Marketplace Collections • Special Prosecutor
Montco lawyer leading inquiry into whether Kane's office leaked grand jury information Shocking-m, -French Video yob Son't knibw F tenctl, yeti-re Witt 10 y see this brilliant vow before ils genet Yet:1 be absolutely blown away after, ìee
SHOCKING DISCOVER'i'
You'll Never Believe What They Thomas E. Cartuccio is a defense lawyer and Republican. Found hlidina in Your Stomach [Video}
By Angela Couloumbis and Craig R. McCoy,inquirer Staff We Recommend Writers POSTED: September 04, 2014 Kane denies bid to release controversial e-mails A veteran lawyer from Montgomery County is the special prosecutor September 25, 2014 heading the inquiry into whether state Attomey General Kathleen G. Kane's office leaked grand jury information in an effort to discredit her Kane to decide whether to release state critics, The Inquirer has leamed. workers racy e-mails September 21, 2014 Thomas E. Carluccio, a criminal defense lawyer in Plymouth Meeting GALLERY: and former prosecutor in Delaware, was appointed over the summer by Thomas E. Castille jabs Kane on gravity of inquiry Carluccio is a a Montgomery County judge to explore how secret records became December 15, 2014 defense public this year about a 2009 investigation by the Attorney General's lawyer... Office involving Philadelphia political activist J. Whyatt Mondesire, Special prosecutor probes Pa. Attorney according to several people familiar with the matter. General's Office September 1, 2014 No charges were brought against Mondesire in the case. The investigation, details of which appeared in a June story in the Philadelphia Daily News, took place before Kane became attorney general. Find More Stories About
Carluccio did not respond to messages left by phone and e-mail Special Prosecutor Tuesday. Renee Martin, Kane's acting director of communications, said the office would have no comment. Kane
The Inquirer first reported news of the special prosecutor's appointment on Sunday. Sources said investigators in the inquiry have issued subpoenas to Kane's office and others.
Carluccio was appointed by Judge William Carpenter, the supervising grand jury judge in the eastern part of the state, the sources said. Both men are Republicans. Kane is a Democrat.
Though there have been past leak inquiries, this appears to be first time the state attorney general or top staffers in the office have come under scrutiny. Such an inquiry typically requires the approval of the
6C6e* file:///ClUsers/FETTER-1/AppData/Local/Temp/RNEMUH95.htm 1/3/2015 Montco lawyer leading inquiry into whether Kane's office leaked grand jury information -... Page 2 of 3
chief justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, according to a 4 Hei spokesman for the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts. Is Ken Fisher nutS? Attac A person who violates grand jury secrecy rules may be found guilty of ,S.ome Wall Streeters might think he is,
SignE contempt of court and sentenced to up to six months in prison.
Carluccio, 57, worked as a state deputy attorney general in Delaware 'because Ken,. famous Forbes columnist and head of Fisher investments. is giving eway ownahe... his new Report to investors with $500,000 before switching sides to work as a defense attorney in Pennsylvania. I or rnore portfolios. Is that you? You should I hese 4 His wife, Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio, is a judge. A Republican, she I have this.timely Report, with a stock Things joined Carpenter on the Montgomery County Common Pleas bench in fOrecast you won't find anywhere else. You'll 2010. Happen ,1 .;Aee quickly: Ken FiSher not only.in't nuts. Betore a The leak to the Daily News involved a 2009 investigation by former I He's the ene with the brains. Heart At Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank G. Fina and onetime Senior GQT.THAT? GET THIS: CLICK HERE, Deputy Attorney General E. Marc Costanzo. Fina, who handled the offices highest-profile criminal cases, left his position shortly after Kane took office.
Heated battle Fina and Kane have been locked in a heated battle over the last two years on how certain cases were handled.
Kane, for instance, brought in a former federal prosecutor after she was elected to review Fines prosecution of former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky on child sex-abuse charges.
During her campaign for office, Kane said the Sandusky probe might have been delayed for political reasons. The independent review found no evidence of that.
And for the last six months, Kane has faced criticism for shutting down a sting operation launched by Fina that sources and investigative documents say captured five Philadelphia Democrats, including four state legislators, on tape accepting money or gifts.
As criticism over the sting case mounted, the Philadelphia Daily News reported in early June that Kane was conducting a review of Fina's handling of a 2009 investigation into Mondesires finances.
The newspapers story discussed, among other things, a secret investigative memo summarizing the status of the Mondesire probe.
Mondesire, the former president of the Philadelphia NAACP, has denied any wrongdoing.
Explicit e-mails The leak investigation has been complicated by a separate but intense legal fight over the exchange of sexually explicit e-mails among former and current state officials.
The e-mails have become an issue because some Kane critics argue that Kanes office is using the threat of their release as a way to silence criticism of her, sources have told The Inquirer.
The messages were discovered during Kane's review of the Sandusky investigation, which involved going through thousands of documents.
The Inquirer has reported that the e-mails were shared on state computers and sometimes through government e-mail accounts. They are said to have contained pornographic images, jokes, cartoons, and other private messages.
Though not all of the recipients are known, some of the material circulated among scores of officials, from homicide investigators in the Attorney General's Office to state prosecutors and other state officials, including top Pennsylvania jurists, The Inquirer has reported.
While Judge Carpenter in Montgomery County is overseeing the leak probe, a different judge, Norman A. Krumenacher 3d, of Cambria County, has jurisdiction over the e-mail issue.
Several news organizations, including The Inquirer, have put in right-to-know requests for the e-mails. But Krumenacher has ordered a stay on the release of the e-mails.
He oversees the grand jury in Western Pennsylvania as well as the legal issues involving Kanes review of the Sandusky prosecution. The e-mails in questions were unearthed by computer experts as part of that review.
acouloumbis@phillynews.com
717-787-5934 ©AngelasInk
Do You Need a Logo for Your Business? Fiverr.com
Please Don't Retire At 62. Here's Why. The Motley Fool
Guess Who's About To Go Bankrupt in America [Shocking] Stansberry Research
file:///ClUsers/FETTER--1/AppData/Local/Temp/RNEMUH95.htm 1/3/2015 Montco lawyer leading inquiry into whether Kane's office leaked grand jury information -... Page 3 of 3
Powerful Plastic: The 7 Best Credit Cards for People With Excellent Credit Next Advisor Daily
CNN Money: How Young Millionaires Invest CNN Money Wealthfront
More From The Web More From PhIlly.com • Social Security: How To Get $1,000 More a Month • Kane won't defend controversial gun law (Newsmax) • Kane's account of sting draws increasing fire • Please Don't Retire At 62. Here's Why. (The Motley Fool) • Kane shut down sting that snared Phila. officials
• Guess Who's About To Go Bankrupt in America • D.A. to charge 2 more Phila. Democrats in sting [Shocking](Stansberry Research) • 'Months, not years:' Williams reopens sting probe • Powerful Plastic: The 7 Best Credit Cards for People With Excellent Credit (Next Advisor Daily) • CNN Money: How Young Millionaires Invest (CNN Money Wealthfront)
Promoted Links by Taboola
comments powered by pisqus Commenting policy l Comments FAQ
What's My House Worth? trulia.com See your Home's Market Value Free & It Just Takes Seconds
Nancy Schultz reflects on her A historic collection found in John duPont dies in prison: husband's murder and S. Phila. home Addled heir killed Olympic forthcoming films athlete in '96 More:
In Bulk Trucking, Chemical Leaman Is Rolling De Mazia Art Brings $2.38 Million Toward The Top Leader Of Jbm Sentenced To Life Aaron Jones Frank Nofer, 71,famed graphic artist Was Convicted Of Conspiring To Distribute $too Million In Cocaine. He Plans To Appeal. George Mattson,88, Olympian, Crew Coach I Jbm 8 Believed Founders
Index by Keyword l Index by Date l About Philly.com I Contact Us l Terms of Use & Privacy Statement l Copyright 2015
file:///C JUsers/FETTER-1/AppData/Local/Temp/RNEMUH95.htm 1/3/2015 Pennsylvania AG Kane grand jury may miss New Year's Eve deadline l TribLIVE Pìge 1 of 2
Return to Sto Print This PagA'118 Larger text Smaller text
Pennsylvania AG Kane grand jury may miss New Year's Eve deadline
AP Attorney General Kathleen Kane speaks during a news conference Friday, June 27, 2014, at the Capitol in Harrisburg, Pa.
1By Brad Bumsted Monday, Dec. 29, 2014, 11:21 p.m.
HARRISBURG — There's nothing magical about the New Years Eve deadline for a grand jury to finish its LIVE work examining whether Attorney General Kathleen Kane violated grand jury secrecy by leaking documents to a Philadelphia newspaper, and the outcome could take weeks or months to be revealed, legal experts said. Several people close to parties involved in the investigation suggest the grand jury could continue to meet through mid-January. "We don't discuss the grand jury activities. It is not public," Kane's spokeswoman, Renee Martin, said. Kane's lawyers have said she did nothing wrong and committed no crime. Even if resolution of the matter is imminent, experts said, the result may not be. "There's no way to anticipate the timeline," said longtime criminal defense attorney William C. Costopoulous of Lemoyne in Cumberland County.
11:6* c file:///C/Users/FETTER-1/AppData/Localifemp/3GZ4UM3Z.htm 1/6/2015 Pennsylvania AG Kane grand jury may miss New Year's Eve deadline TribLIVE Page 2 of 2
Judges sometimes seal grand jury presentments. And the grand jury's recommendations could be referred to a district attorney, who may decide that further investigation is necessary. The results could range from clearing Kane, or making no report; directing Kane to explain at a hearing why she should not be held in contempt of court; or recommending criminal charges such as perjury or obstruction of justice. If the grand jury finds no wrongdoing or need for a critical report, it could issue a report specifically clearing the parties involved, Costopoulous said. "The range of possibilities is fairly broad," said Bruce Antkowiak, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at St. Vincent College in Unity. Kane testified last month before the grand jury in Montgomery County and acknowledged that she knew her office provided the Philadelphia Daily News information from a 2009 case about a man never charged with a crime, possibly to embarrass a former prosecutor with whom Kane is feuding. Kane of Clarks Summit near Scranton is the first woman and first Democrat elected as attorney general. She said she believed the material leaked was not covered by grand jury secrecy. The investigation of a statewide law enforcement official by a court-appointed special prosecutor is unusual, if not unprecedented, experts said. Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille, who must retire Wednesday because he is 70, appointed as prosecutor Thomas Carluccio, a Norristown attorney selected by Montgomery County Judge William Carpenter. Castille said there's precedent for court-appointed special prosecutors to handle grand jury leaks. But since the state's first elected attorney general took office in 1980, none has undergone such an inquiry, said G. Terry Madonna, a political science professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster. Former Attorney General Ernie Preate, a Scranton Republican, resigned in 1995 upon pleading guilty to a federal mail fraud charge. With grand jury secrecy, some "assumptions must be made" to analyze the investigation, said former Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor, a Republican county commissioner. "The first assumption I make is that the special prosecutor has no enforcement authority over the laws of the commonwealth," Castor said. "Anything the special prosecutor uncovers could be inadmissible if it was gathered by a person without the authority to do so." That may result in a referral of any findings to a district attorney, who may want to "reinvestigate" by talking with witnesses and reviewing documents, Castor said. Castor and experts believe the court has authority to decide contempt of court, which they consider an "offense against the court." The penalty for contempt in a grand jury leak is up to six months in prison. There's inherent authority for the court to investigate a leak when "there is a conflict of interest," Antkowiak said. Kane "could certainly not investigate herself." "If there's no solution, a potentially serious criminal act goes unaddressed,'' Antkowiak said. Kane has said she intends to seek re-election in 2016. But a critical grand jury report could be "very nasty" and affect her career, Castor said. Nothing prevents the transfer of the grand jury's work to another grand jury, if needed, though that could cause legal obstacles and delays, he said. Brad Bumsted is Trib Total Media's state Capitol reporter. Reach him at 717-787-1405 or bbumsted@tribweb.com. Copyright © 2015 — Trib Total Media
file:///C:/Users/FETTER-1/AppData/Local/Temp/3GZ4UM3Z.htm 1/6/2015 Stakes are high for Kane at grand jury meeting Page 1 of 5
Monday, January 5, 2015 Sign In l Register
.1 Philadelphia, PA 43 1 Bolaris Forecast
I News I Sports I Entertainment I Business l Opinion l Food l Lifestyle l Health l More BREAKING NEWS VIDEO VOICES/BLOGS PHILADELPHIA NEWS NEW JERSEY POLITICO EDUCATION OBITUARIES NATION/WORLD WEATHER TRAFFIC LOTTERY
Stakes are high for Kane at grand Latest News Video jury meeting .r 190 COMMENTS ed Home Invasion In West Oak rCBS Philly
Most Viewed News Stories: Merlino the maitre d' to take prison 'vacation'
Kathleen Kane explains a point to a reporter about the sting evidence at a March news conference in Harrisburg. She said the investigation was flawed. MICHAEL BRYANT / Staff —1 'Eyeball' man sentenced for shooting officer Angela Couloumbis and Craig R. McCoy, Inquirer staff writers
POSTED: Sunday, January 4, 2015, 1:08 AM
For AG Kane,stakes in probe run high Over the last year, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen GALLERY: Stakes are high G. Kane has stumbled from one professionally damaging for Kane at grand jury meeting matter to another. Two men shot outside NoLibs strip Now she faces another obstacle - and potentially the biggest club yet.
Early this year, a statewide grand jury meeting in Norristown is expected to decide whether the onetime rising political star • Tollefson's charity theft trial set violated prosecutorial rules by leaking secret information to embarrass her enemies.
For Kane, the stakes are high: The grand jury could go so far as to recommend criminal charges, putting her in the awkward position of defending herself against allegations that
O file:///C:/Users/FETTER-1/AppData/Local/Temp/RU2PJT27.htm 1/5/2015 Stakes are high for Kane at grand jury meeting Page 2 of 5
she broke the law while serving as the states top enforcer of laU law.
Even supporters acknowledge that the next few weeks could mark a make-or-break moment in her career. The risks range Holt • ,.-.1-ptiER ^
from a written rebuke, to being found in contempt of court, to CIR ERE ;,CIRCULAik a criminal charge of obstructing justice. FUIAITURE
"The next few weeks will be a turning point for her," said John ! DOLLAR GENERAL, Morganelli, the Democratic district attorney in Northampton County in the Lehigh Valley. "If it ends in a contempt citation by a judge, it may not be devastating. But if there are crimes- code violations, that could be problematic." file, SAVINGS Tre81- 14 Kane, a Democrat, has acknowledged that her office released OillerOhl ' LLLAR G NERAL
information about a grand jury case run by her Republican predecessors. But she has contended that the information was not confidential grand jury material. Also on Philly.com She has also strongly suggested that the leak investigation is BUSINESS: aimed at destroying her politically. Judge to weish sale of ex-Revel casino to runner-up bidder "I am fighting for an end to abuse of the criminal justice system," Kane said in November, as she was heading in to the grand jury to testify. "If this can be done to me as attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer of the fifth-largest Is sugar making us state in the country, I am sickened to think what can and may sick? be done to regular, good people." Travel Deals The leak inquiry was authorized in the summer by former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille, a Kelly's next draft will Republican. The grand jury meets in secret, and, in an be interesting unusual move, witnesses before the panel have been ordered not to discuss their testimony publicly, according to two people familiar with the matter. $915* & up -- Flights to 10 ENTERTAINMENT: Cities in Africa, 30% Off The Inquirer has learned that a number of former high-ranking Five shows you don't (R/T) want to miss this officials in Kane's administration have testified, including her week See all travel deals » former first deputy, Philadelphia lawyer Adrian King, and her USTIOSYTRAVE1700 onetime chief operating officer, David Tyler. Howard Bruce Klein, the attorney for Linda Dale Hoffa, another former top FOOD: Kane aide, declined comment. Review: Blue Duck fills the bill in N.E. Shop Team Gear In the main, people familiar with the matter say, the grand jury Philly IT is examining how internal documents from a 2009 grand jury Philadelphia Phillies Camo Santa Hat - investigation led by the Attorney General's Office ended up Red/Royal Blue JOBS: being cited in a Philadelphia Daily News story this past June. Video: How to keep job-search resolutions In 2015
Expanded inquiry
The investigation involved alleged financial improprieties by J. Stay Connected $17.99(5% off) Whyatt Mondesire, the former president of the Philadelphia Get the latest Philly.com Daily Headlines newsletter Buy Now delivered to your email. Sign up now! NAACP. It was overseen by then-state prosecutor Frank G. < prey next > Fina, with whom Kane has been locked for months in a bitter Enter email address to sign up and tangled dispute over how certain cases were handled. Already a philly.com member? C Yes O No
The grand jury has expanded its inquiry to examine Kanes decision in the fall to release the names of eight men who
fileINClUsers/FETTER-1/AppData/Local/Temp/RU2PJT27.htm 1/5/2015 Stakes are high for Kane at grand jury meeting Page 3 of 5
traded pornographic e-mails on state time, The Inquirer has learned. All eight had ties to Fina.
Kane's political star began to dim last year after The Inquirer reported that she had shut down a sting investigation launched.by Fina, even though the undercover operation had caught public officials on tape accepting cash. To some, the story in the Daily News seemed designed to strike a counterblow at Fina.
In a mirror image of the criticism Kane has sustained over the sting, the newspaper article suggested that Fina had failed to aggressively pursue the Mondesire matter.
Fina was among scores of current or former staffers in the Attorney General's Office who exchanged sexually explicit e-mails, and Kane has been intent on naming him in connection with that, as she did with the eight officials, The Inquirer has reported.
But sources say the judge supervising the leak inquiry issued an order several months ago effectively barring Kane from citing Fina's name publicly. The judge did so after Fina and others argued that Kane was using the threat of releasing the e-mails to intimidate them.
A year of controversy
After a landslide victory in 2012 that made her the first woman and first Democrat elected attorney general in the state, Kane swiftly built a national reputation in her first year in office for her stands in favor of gay rights and gun control.
Her second year, though, was marked by controversy over the sting, her retractions of public statements, and repeated shake-ups of her staff. Amid that, she could not point to any high-profile convictions to change the subject: The Pennsylvania Turnpike pay-to-play corruption case she announced with fanfare early in office fizzled late last year without any defendant receiving a jail sentence.
While admitting the disclosure of information to the Daily News, Kane - who declined comment for this article - has said the material was passed on "in a way that did not violate statutory or case law regarding grand jury secrecy."
Her contention: that Pennsylvania law has no statute that binds an attorney general to grand jury secrecy. indeed, the state law establishing investigative grand juries makes no mention of the attorney general. Rather, it imposes secrecy rules on the participants in the jury room, and it names them - "juror, attorney, interpreter, stenographer," adding: "All such persons shall be sworn to secrecy, and shall be in contempt of court if they reveal any information which they are sworn to keep secret."
One of Kane's lawyers, Lanny J. Davis, has noted that when the Mondesire grand jury was in session in 2009 - and
file:///ClUsers/FETTER-1/AppData/Local/Temp/RU2PJT27.htm 1/5/2015 Stakes are high for Kane at grand jury meeting Page 4 of 5
participants swore secrecy oaths - Kane was a stay-at-home mom.
"It is our legal opinion that there has never been a case decided where a succeeding attorney general has been accused of violating an oath that she never took," Davis said in an interview late last year.
Beyond that, Kane contends that she authorized only a very limited disclosure of information to the Daily News: a document related to a review she launched last March examining how Fina dealt with the Mondesire allegations in 2009. Mondesire, who has denied any wrongdoing, was not charged in the inquiry, which ended years ago.
Overzealous staff?
Yet the article also quoted heavily from a 2009 internal memo detailing allegations against Mondesire. Kane maintains she has no idea how that particular document got to the newspaper. In effect, she is suggesting that perhaps overzealous members of her staff may have erred in putting together the information given to the newspaper.
Finally, Kane's allies are questioning the very legality of the investigation, saying no explicit statute permits such a leak investigation.
Castille has rejected this argument, citing among other things a state law that gives the high court the broad power to "cause right and justice to be done."
Nor are such leak inquiries unprecedented. The high court has authorized them at least twice before. In a 2007 case, the investigation led to the jailing of an investigator from the Attorney General's Office.
G. Terry Madonna, the political analyst, says any finding that Kane broke the law would be devastating to her image. Her post is closely tied to issues of character and integrity, Madonna said.
"You are innocent until proven guilty," he said. "But she is the state's top law enforcement officer. Any way you frame it, she is going to be in an extraordinarily tenuous position."
acoulournbisQphillynews.com 717-787-5934(MAngelasInk
Angela Couloumbis and Craig R. McCoy Inquirer Staff writers
190 COMMENTS . Reprints & Permissions
file:///ClUsers/FETTER-1/AppData/Local/Temp/RU2PJT27.htm 1/5/2015 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 121 and 122, the undersigned certifies that a true and
correct copy ofthe foregoing document was served on the individual listed below on
the date indicated by e-mail and first class United States mail.
Thomas E. Carluccio, Esq. Special Prosecutor 1000 Madison Avenue Norristown, PA 19403 E-mail: mailto:tomc3@comcast.net Telephone:(484)674-2899
, January 7, 2014 A/illiaw, William A. Fetterhoff, Fetterhoff and Zilli 218 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: 717 232-7722 FAX: 717 233-4965 E-mail: wfetterhoff@live.com PA Supreme Court ID 23148 Attorneyfor Patrick R. Reese
10 Filed in Supreme Goun JAN 7 2014
A/liddle UNSEALED PER ORDER OF THE COURT DATED AUGUST 26, 2015
GRAND JURY DOCKETS: SUPREME COURT OF PA SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, No. 176 MD 2012 THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE • MONTGOMERY CO. COURT INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : No. 2644 MD 2012
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ORIGINAL PROCESS
AND NOW,this 7th day ofJanuary, 2015,comes Patrick R.Reese, by counsel,
1. This Emergency Application For Leave To File Original Process is filed
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 3307.
2. The accompanying Emergency Application For Extraordinary Relief
invokes the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under both 42 Pa.C.S.A. §721(3)
(original jurisdiction ofthe Supreme Court in quo warranto), and 42 Pa.C.S.A. §726 Received In Supreme Court
Middle (extraordinary or King's Bench jurisdiction).
3. In reference to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§721(3) only, leave to file the accompanying Emergency Application For
Extraordinary Relief is requested on the ground that the Special Prosecutor in this
matter was authorized by the Supreme Court,and such authorization would therefore
not be subject to review by the Supervising Judge of the Grand Jury or any lesser
court. While all documents filed to the grand jury dockets in this matter are under
seal, it has been publicly reported that Supervising Judge ofthe Grand Jury William
R.Carpenter issued the Order appointing the Special Prosecutor in this case,pursuant
to a specific grant of authority by the Supreme Court to make such appointment.
4. The accompanying Emergency Application For Extraordinary Relief has
also been filed pursuant to King's Bench jurisdiction under 42 Pa.C.S.A. §726, and
is not subject to Pa.R.A.P. 3307.
WHEREFORE,it is requested that leave be granted under Pa.R.A.P. 3307 to
include within the accompanying Emergency Application For Extraordinary Relief,
a concurrent basis for relief under 42 Pa.C.S.A. §721(3).
2 Respectfully submitted,
William A. Fetterhoff, E Fetterhoff and Zilli 218 Pine Street Harrisburg,PA 17101 Telephone: 717 232-7722 FAX: 717 233-4965 E-mail: wfetterhoff@live.com PA Supreme Court ID 23148 Attorneyfor Patrick R. Reese
3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 121 and 122, the undersigned certifies that a true and
correct copy ofthe foregoing document was served on the individual listed below on
the date indicated by e-mail and first class United States mail.
Thomas E. Carluccio, Esq. Special Prosecutor 1000 Madison Avenue Norristown,PA 19403 E-mail: mailto:tomc3@comcast.net Telephone:(484)674-2899
January 7, 2014 William A. Fetterhoff, Es Fetterhoff and Zilli 218 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: 717 232-7722 FAX: 717 233-4965 E-mail: wfetterhoff@live.com PA Supreme Court ID 23148 Attorneyfor Patrick R. Reese
4 Fileo upreme Court JAN 7 2014
tvliddle UNSEALED PER ORDER OF THE COURT DATED AUGUST 26, 2015
GRAND JURY DOCKETS: SUPREME COURT OF PA SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, No. 176 MD 2012 THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE • MONTGOMERY CO. COURT INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : No. 2644 MD 2012
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY OF GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS
AND NOW,this 7th day ofJanualy,2015,comes Patrick R. Reese, by counsel,
1. This Emergency Application For Stay of Grand jury Proceedings is filed
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 3309(d) and Chapter 17.
2. The Applicant has been subpoened by the Special Prosecutor to appear and
testify before the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury on January 12,
2015 Received in Supreme Court
JAN 0 7 2015 3. Orderly review by the Supreme Court of the companion Emergency
Application For Leave To File Original Process and Emergency Application For
Extraordinary Relief cannot occur prior to January 12, 2015.
4. The appointment of the Special Prosecutor in this matter was without any
authority under Pennsylvania law, as set forth in the companion Emergency
Application For Extraordinary Relief. The Applicant has accordingly presented a
meritorious Application.
5. In the absence ofa stay,the Applicant's opportunity to secure relief, or even
consideration of any entitlement to relief, will be frustrated, and he will suffer the
immediate and irreparable harm of being compelled to testify pursuant to subpoena
issued by a Special Prosecutor appointed without lawful authority.
6. Determination by the Supreme Court ofthe legality ofthe office of Special
Prosecutor and any legal authority for the appointment of the Special Prosecutor is
a matter ofimmediate and substantial public importance and interest.
WHEREFORE, it is requested that the Supreme Court issue a stay of the
proceedings ofthe Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury as related to the
matters being presented to that Grand Jury by the Special Prosecutor and described
in the companion Emergency Application For Extraordinary Relief.
,1 William A. Fetterhoff, Fetterhoff and Zilli 218 Pine Street Harrisburg,PA 17101 Telephone: 717 232-7722 FAX: 717 233-4965 E-mail: wfetterhoff@live.com PA Supreme Court ID 23148 Attorneyfor Patrick R. Reese
Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 121 and 122, the undersigned certifies that a true and
correct copy ofthe foregoing document was served on the individual listed below on
the date indicated by e-mail and first class United States mail.
Thomas E. Carluccio, Esq. Special Prosecutor 1000 Madison Avenue Norristown,PA 19403 E-mail: mailto:tomc3@comcast.net Telephone:(484)674-2899
January 7, 2014 Attt4. 4 William A. Fetterhoff, Fetterhoff and Zilli 218 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: 717 232-7722 FAX: 717 233-4965 E-mail: wfetterhoff@live.com PA Supreme Court ID 23148 Attorneyfor Patrick R. Reese
4 Filar in•uprerne Court JAN 9 ¿üís IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT Middle UNSEALED PER ORDER OF THE IN : SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT DATED : NO. 2 MM 2015 AUGUST 26, 2015 TH THIRTY,FIFTH STATEWIDE : MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS INVUTIGATING GRAND JURY : M.D. 2644-2012
SEALING ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2015, it is hereby ORDERED, that the attached Opinion of
January 9, 2015 be filed under seal with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania until further Order of this
Court.
BY THE COURT:
Supervising Judge
Received in Supreme Court
JAN 9 2015
Middle FILED UNDER SEAL
IN RE: SUPREME COURT DOCKET THE THIRTY-F1FTH STATEWIDE NO. 2 MM 2015 INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS NO. 2644-2012
OPINION
CARPENTER J. JANUARY 9, 2015
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Patrick R. Reese, Supervisory Special Agent for the Pennsylvania Office of the
Attorney General ("QAQ") was subpoenaed to testify before the Thirty-Fifth Statewide
Investigating Grand Jury on January 12, 2015. In response to this subpoena, pn January 7,
2015, Special Agent Reese filed an Emergency Application for Extraordinary Relief
("Emergency Application") currently before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, seeking to stay
the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury proceedings based upon his allegation that
the appointment of the Special Prosecutor, Thomas E. Carluccio, by me, as the Supervising
Judge of the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, was improper.
Special Agent Reese seeks to vacate the order appointing Special Prosecutor
Carlupcio, prohibit enforcement of all subpoenas issued by the Special Prosecutor and further
prohibit issuance of any report or presentment by the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand
Jury. See, Motion for Extraordinary Relief 1/7/15, Wherefore clause, p. 9. Special Agent Reese's Emergency Application should be denied based upon his lack of standing; and even if
he does have standing, his Emergency Application should be denied because a supervising
judge of a statewide grand jury has the inherent authority to appoint a special prospcutor.
This Emergency Application was never served upon me. I had no knowledge of it
until I was made aware of it by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Not only was thp basic and
common curtesy of properly serving this Emergency Application upon me ignored; but also,
counsel never presented any asppct of this matter to me for adjudication. This matter shpuld
have come before me as a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena. Perhaps counsel was trying
to make an end run around the possibility that such a motion would be denied, and would not be
prpwtly appealable as an order denying a motion to quash is considered interlocutory. In re
Dauphin County Fourth Investigating Grand Jury, 596 Pa. 378, 943 A.2d 929(Pa. 2007), the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court discussed the interlocutory nature of an ordpr denying a motion to
quash, and the prpper procedure for challenging such an order as follows:
As a general rule, an order denying a motion to quash a subpoena is considered interlocutory and not subject to immediate appeal. pne seeking to challenge the propriety of a grand jury subpoena must generally choose between complying with the subpoena and litigating the validity through contempt proceedings. Requiring the choice between compliance with the subpoena and the possibility of contempt preserves the interest in expeditious grand jury proceedings.
[Me have consistently held that the necessity for expedition in the administration of the criminal law justifies putting one who seeks to resist the production of desired information to a choice between compliance with a trial court's order to produce prior to any review of that order, and resistance to that order with the concomitant possibility of an adjudication of contempt if his claims are rejected on appeal. Further, the approach facilitates development of an adequate factual record in support of the reasons supporting resistance to the subpoena.
Id., 943 A.2d 929, 934 - 935 (Pa. 2007)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). By filing
this Emergency Application rather than a motion to quash, Special Agent Reese is trying to
2 bypass thQse concerns, and get directly in front of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court without
following the proper procedure, and arguably without the proper standing.
By way of a brief background, on May 29, 2014, I, as Supervising Judge of the
Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, found that there were "reasonable grounds to
believe a further more substantive investigation" into allegations that statewide Grand Jury
secrecy may have been compromised was warranted, and on that Ote I appointed Special
Prosecutor Carluccio. The May 29, 2014 Order followed an in camera proceOing which
established that there was a leak of secret Grand Jury information and that the leak most likely
came from the Office of the Attorney General. Accordingly, I determined that the appointment of
a Special Prosecutor was necessary and appropriate.
Special Agent Reese was served with a subpoena to appear and testify on
January 12, 2015, before the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Grand Jury. On January 7, 2015, Special
Agent Reese filed the Emergency Application for Emergency Relief currently before the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
ISSUES
Whether . . Reese lacks standing to bring this action. Special, Agent
11. Whether the appointment of Special Prosecutor Carluccio was proper.
III. Whether an uniust result will occur if the requested relief is granted.
DISCUSSION
l. Special Agent Reese lacks standing to bring this action.
Special Agent Reese was subpoenaed to testify before the Thirty-Fifth Statewide
Investigating Grand Jury, and claims that by virtue of this subpoena he has standing to
challenge the legality of the office of Special Prosecutor, relying on Gwinn v. Kane, 339 A.2d
838 (Pa.CmwIth. 1975).
3 Generally, a quo warranto action can only be instituted by the Attorney General
or by the local district attorney. A private person will have standing to bring a quo warranto
action only if that person has a special right or interest in the matter, as distinguished from the
right or interest of the public generally, or if the private person has been spepially damaged.
Spykerman v. Levy, 491 Pa. 470, 485-86, 421 A.2d 641, 649 (1980).
In Gwinn v. Kane, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court concluded that a
plaintiff, who had been indicted by a special prosecutor the Attorney General appointed to
investigate bribery and corruption in the awarding of public contracts, had standing to bring a
guo warranto action to challenge the appointment. The same concerns or "special right or
interest is not present in this case, where Special Agent Reese has rnerely been called to
testify as a witness before the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury.
If all subpoenaed witnesses who did not want to testify before the grand jury
could file a quo warranto action with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rather than a motion to
quash with the Statewide Supervising Grand Jury Judge if he or she believed it would result in
an unfavorable ruling, then all those similarly situated could make an end run around the
process and procedure set forth by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in In re Dauphin County
Fourth Investigating Grand Jury, 596 Pa. 378, 943 A.2d 929(Pa. 2007).
11. The appointrnent of Special Prosecutor Carluccio was proper.
My authority for the appointment of a special prosecutor was based upon the
case of In re Dauphin County Fourth Investigating Grand Jury, 610 Pa. 296, 19 A,3d 491
(2014). This case dealt with the appointment of an special prosecutor in connection with alleged
grand jury leaks, and the Court stated that, "[w]hen there are colorable allegations or indications
that the sanctity of the grand jury process has been breached and those allegations warrant
investigation, the appointment of a special prosecutor to conduct such an investigation is
4 appropriate. And, even where the investigations of special prosecutors do not lead to
prosecutable breaches of secrecy, they may provide insight into thp often-competing values at
stake, as well as guidance and context so that prosecutors and supervising judges conducting
future proceedings may learn from the examples." kL at 504.
The Court explained the vital role a supervising judge in regard to the grand jury
procpss and emphasized the "[t]he very power of the grand jury, and the secrecy in which it
operatps, call for a strong judicial hand in supervising the proceedings" Id. at 503. The Court
furthgr explained as follows:
We are cognizant that the substantial powers exercised by investigating grand juries, as well as the secrecy in which the proceedings are conducted, yield[]the potential for abuses. The safeguards against such abuses are reflected in the statutory scheme of regulation, which recognizes the essential role of the judiciary in supervising grand jury functions.
Id. at 503 — 504 (citing from In re Twenty-Fourth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, 589 Pa.
89, 907 A.2d 505, 512 (2006).
Thus, Pennsylvania's grand jury process is 'strictly regulated, and the supervising judge has the singular role in maintaining the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings. The supervising judge has the continuing responsibility to oversee grand jury proceedings, a responsibility which includes insuring the solemn oath of secrecy is observed by all participants.
Id:at 504 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
The In re Dauphin County Court cited two cases that involved the appointment of
a special prosecutor when there were allegations of grand jury leaks. The Court first cited to a
Lackawanna Common Pleas Court case, In re County Investigating Grand Jury VII! (Lack. Com.
Pl. 2005).
In that case there were allegations made, including, that e-mail communications
had been exchanged between the Lackawanna District Attorney's Office and a newspaper
reporter that divulged grand jury information, that a grand jury witness had been contacted by
5 the reporter a short time after the witness appeared before the grand jury and was questioned
about private matters that had been disclosed only to the grand jury. In re Dauphin County, 19
A.3d at 504. A preliminary review by the common pleas court judge verified only the existence
of the emails that were exchanged between the reporter and a member of the District Attorney's
office during the time the grand jury was conducting the relevant investigation. It was based
upon this review that the common pleas court judge appointed a special prosecutor to
investigate the allegations of a grand jury leak. Id.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in In re Dauphin County cited an additional
example involving a special prosecutor in connection with alleged grand jury leaks and the
complex interest and values implicated in an appointment of an special prosecutor. The Court
cited to Castellani v. Scranton Tjrnes, 598 Pa. 283, 956 A.2d 937 (2008). In Castellani, the
supervising judge appointed a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of grand jury leaks in
connection with a statewide investigating grand jury tasked with investigating allegations of
abuse of the county prisoners Cy the prison guards. In re Dauphin County, 19 A.3d at 506.
Not only is there strong precedent that permits a supervising jydge to appoint a
special prosecutor vyhen there pre allegations of grand jury leaks; but also, at the time I
appointed the Special Prosecutor on May 29, 2014, by way of a court order, which was
delivered to Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille, I wrote a letter to Chief Justice Castille. In that
letter, I explained what I had done and I ended the letter with the following language, "Please
advise if you feel that I am in error or have exceeded my authority as the Supervising Grand
Jury Judge '' See, Exhibit "A, Letter dated May 29, 2014 to Chief Justice Castille. All of my
letters to Chief Justice Castille have concluded with similar language. I have never been
informed that I erred or exceeded my authority.
Additionally, Special Agent Reese argues in his Emergency Motion that "[t]here
was no necessity for the appointment of a special prosecutor I this matter, since, according to
publicly known facts several count District Attorneys had jurisdiction to investigate any 'leak by
6 the QAG and prosecute any crime found to have been committed.'' See, Emergency Motion for
Extraordinary Relief 1/7/15 p. 8 ¶19. Special Agent Reese is only correct to the extent that
under the Grand Jury Act, Section 4551(d), 42 Pa.C.S.A, provides that "[i]n any case where
rnulticounty investigating grand jury returns a presentment the supervising judge shall select the
county for conducting the trial from among those counties having jurisdiction." 42 Pa.C.S. §
4551(d). However, at the time of the appointment of Special Prosecutor Carluccio there was no
clear indication which county might ultimately have jurisdiction to prosecute criminal charges. It
wasn't even known whether an investigation into the leak would have resulted in criminal
charges. It could have resulted in a finding of contempt. Therefore, it was not clear which county
would have been appropriate to investigate the leak. Asking a county District Attorney to use the
resources of their office to investigate a matter for which they might never have jurisdiction is
simply not appropriate.
The Supervising Judge of a Statewide Investigating Grand Jury must have the
inherent authority to appoint a special prosecutor when appropriate. The Supervising Judge of
Statewide Investigating Grand Jury must have the inherent authority to use the resources of that
Grand Jury to investigate breaches of grand jury secrecy. Without the inherent authority of the
Supervising Judge to appoint a special prosecutor and use the resources of the grand jury,
leaks of secret grand jury materials by members of the OAG would not be properly and timely
addressed. Additionally, the Supervising Judge would be severely hampered in carrying out the
duties of the position as Supervising Judge.
III. An unjust result will occur if the requested relief is granted.
Finally, if relief were to be granted, the result would be unjust. The maximum
term of the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury expires on January 16, 2015.
Granting the requested relief would forever prevent the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating
Grand Jury from ever hearing the testimony of Special Agent Reese. That would be unjust. This
7 Grand Jury has heard the testimony of all of the other relevant witnesses in this matter. Asking
Special Agent Reese to tell the truth before the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury
is not prejudicial to him. Rather, it allows the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury to
finish its work regarding the allegation of the leak of secret Grand Jury information. A law
enforcement officer such as a Special Agent should honor a subpoena and should tell the truth.
CONCLUSION
I respectfully submit that this Emergency Application for Extraordinary Relief be
denied.
WILLIAM R. CARPENTER J. SUPERVISING JUDGE OF THE THIRTY- FIFTH STATEWIDE INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY
8 EXHIBIT "A" PRESIDENT JUDGE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WILLIAM J. PURGER. JR. ASSOCIATE JUDGES SENIOR JUDGES • JOSEPH A. SMYTH WILLIAM T. NICHOLAS STANLEY R. OTT S. GERALD CORSO BERNARD A. MOORE CALVIN S. DRAYER, JR. WILLIAM R. CARPENTER KENT H. ALBRIGHT RHONDA I.-EE DANIELE ARTHUR R. TILSON EMANUEL A. BERTIN MONTGOMERY COUNTY THOMAS M. DELRICCI THIRTY-EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT R. STEPHEN SARRETT NORRISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA Trfpp4,%s C. PRANCA STEYEN T. O'NEILL 19404 THOMAS r. RDGERs BARRETT D.?ADE KELLY C. WALL CAROLYN TORNETTA CARLUCCIO WENDY DEMCHICK-ALLOY pATRICIA E. COONAHAN LOJS EisNgR MURPHY GA:RY S. SILOW RICHARD P. HAAZ CHERYL L. AUSTIN GAR. A. WEILHEIMER STEVEN C. TOLLIVER, SR.
May 29, 2014
Tile Honorable Ronald D. Castille ChiefJustice ofPennsylvania Supreme Court ofPennsylvania $18 Market Street, Suite 3730 Philadelphia,PA 19103
go; Statewide Investigating Grand Juries
Dear ChiefJustice:
Enclosed you will find an Order appointing a Special Prosecutor to investigate an allegation that secret Grand Jury information from a prior Grand Jury was released by someone in the Attorney General's Office.
As the current supervising Grand Jury Judge, this matter was brought to my attention. My preliminary review included in camera sealed testimony from two individuals with knowledge.
I have decided that the matter is important enough to appoint a Special Prosecutor, Thomas E. Carluccip, Esquire. He is a former prosecutor, served in the Department ofthe Attorney General in Delaware for fourteen years and a Special Assistant United States Attorney. In addition Tom has done Grand Jury work, and is honest, capable and reliable.
Please call me if you would like to discuss this matter further.
Please advise if you feel that I am in error or have exceeded my authority as the Supervising Grand Jury Judge.
Sincerel
tv.1 William R. Carpenter, J. Supervising Judge
WRC/cns Cc. Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
IN RE: : SUPREME COURT pF PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2 MM 2015 THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE : MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS INNE§TIGATINg pRANp JURY : M.D. 2644-2012
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, William R. Carpenter, Supervising Judge of the 35th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, certify that a true and correct dopy of the attached Opinion of January 9, 2015 was forwarded to the persons set forth below via First Class Mail on January 9, 2015.
WILLIAM R. CARPENT Supervising Judge Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas P.O. Box 311 Norristown, PA 19404
Prothonotary Irene Bizzoso Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Judicial Center 601 Commonwealth Avenue Suite 4500 P.O. Box 62575 Harrisburg, PA 17106
William A. Fetterhoff, Esquire 218 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17101
Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire Special Prosecutor 1000 Germantown Pike Suite D3 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 SEALED
UNSEALED PER IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ORDER OF THE MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT DATED AUGUST 26, 2015
IN RE: SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, : No. 2 MM 2015 THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE : INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : : : :
PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2015, to the extent the Application for Stay
seeks to stay enforcement of the subpoena issued to Petitioner by the Thirty-Fifth
Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, it is GRANTED pending disposition of the
Application for Extraordinary Relief. UNSEALED PER Filed in Suwerne GOU ORDER OF THE JAN 9 2015 COURT DATED AUGUST 26, 2015 FILED UNDER SEAL
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PA SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: NO. 2 MM 2015
THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY M.D. 2644-2012
ANSWER OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO THE EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF OF PATRICK R. REESE
Thomas E. Carluccio, Special Prosecutor to the Investigatory Grand Jury hereby answers
the Emergency Applicationfor Extraordinary Relieffiled by Patrick R. Reese, and states in
support thereof as follows:
1. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that the legal citations provided
relate to the subject matter for which they assigned within this pleading. However, any assertion
that such legal citations that together or separately dispositive to the underlying issues: (i) that
the Supervising Judge of the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury maintains the
requisite legal authority to convene an investigation into allegations that statewide grand jury
secrecy might have been compromised; (ii) that such legal authority was unconstitutional
because it violated the separation of powers inherent in the Pennsylvania Constitution; and/or
(iii) that the Supervising Judge did not maintain the requisite legal authority to appoint a Special
Prosecutor — are all denied. To the contrary THE INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY ACT, and
Page: 1
iddie specifically 42 Pa.C.S. §4548(a) and § 4542 thereunder have both been appropriately met, as
reflected in formal records and pleadings before this Honorable Court, and both the said Act and
such documentation are conclusive to establishing that the Supervising Judge maintains legal
authority to convene and oversee the subject Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury,
and to appoint a Special Prosecutor thereto.
2. — 21.(inclusive). Denied. The facts and events are denied as characterized by Reese in
the underlying Application. By way of further answer, the facts and events set forth by Reese
fail to raise a lawful claim against the Supervising Judge of the Thirty-Fifth Statewide
Investigating Grand Jury maintains the requisite legal authority to convene an investigation into
allegations that statewide grand jury secrecy might have been compromised as stated above.
WHEREFORE, the Emergency Application for Extraordinary Relief filed by Patrick R.
Reese should be denied, under law and for events which effectively render such arguments
should be denied.
Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. # 81858 Plymouth Greene Office Campus 1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D-3 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19464-2484 (484)674-2899 Special Prosecutor of Investigating Grand Jury No. #35
DATED: //9 //)
Page: 2 VERIFICATION 1, Thomas E. Carluccio, Esq. as Special Prosecutor to the Investigating Grand Jury No #35
appointed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, hereby state that after due diligence and investigation into
the operative events underlying the subject matter of the Emergency Application for Extraordinary
Relieffiled of record with the Court by Patrick R. Reese, I hereby represent that the averments set forth
in the foregoing Answer to the said Application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. # 81858 Plymouth Greene Office Campus 1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D-3 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19464-2484 (484)674-2899 Special Prosecutor of Investigating Grandfury No. #35 UNSEALED PER Filed in Supreme Court ORDER OF THE JAN 9 20i5 COURT DATED AUGUST 26, 2015 iI FILED UNDER SEAL
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PA SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: NO. 2 MM 2015
THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY M.D. 2644-2012
ANSWER OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO THE EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ORIGINAL PROCESS OF PATRICK R. REESE
Thomas E. Carluccio, Special Prosecutor ("Respondent")to the Investigatory Grand Jury
hereby answers the Emergency Applicationfor Leave to File Original Process filed by Patrick R.
Reese ("Applicanr), and states in support thereof as follows:
I. to 4. (inclusive) Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that the legal
citations provided relate to the subject matter for which they assigned within this pleading.
However, any assertion that such legal citations taken, together or separately, are dispositive to
the underlying rights and standing of the Applicant to file this pleading is denied.
WHEREFORE, the Emergency Application for Leave to File Original Process filed by
Patrick R. Reese should be denied.
Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire Attorney 1.D. No. # 81858 Plymouth Greene Office Campus 1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D-3 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19464-2484 (484)674-2899 Special Prosecutor of Investigating Grand Jury No. #35 DATED: Page: 1 Received in Supreme Court
Middle VERIFICATION 1, Thomas E. Carluccio, Esq. as Special Prosecutor to the Investigating Grand Jury No #35
appointed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, hereby state that after due diligence and investigation into
the operative events underlying the subject matter of the Emergency Application for Leave to File
Original Process filed of record with the Court by Patrick R. Reese, I hereby represent that the
averments set forth in the foregoing Answer to the said Application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the
penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. # 81858 Plymouth Greene Office Campus 1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D-3 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19464-2484 (484)674-2899 Special Prosecutor of Investigating Grand Jury No. #35 UNSEALED PER Filed In 6upreme Coun ORDER OF THE COURT DATED JAN 9 206 AUGUST 26, 2015
FILED UNDER SEtildd6
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PA
IN RE: • SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2 MM 2015
THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY M.D. 2644-2012
ANSWER OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO THE EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY OF GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS OF PATRICK R. REESE
Thomas E. Carluccio, Special Prosecutor ("Respondent") to the Investigatory Grand Jury
hereby answers the Emergency Applicationfor Stay ofGrand Jury Proceedings filed by Patrick
R. Reese ("Applicant"), and states in support thereof as follows:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Denied. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations of this Paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
4. Denied. It is denied that the appointment of a Special Prosecutor in this matter was
done without legal authority. To the contrary such appointment was made consistent with THE
INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY ACT,and consistent with the plenary supervisory authority afforded
under law and granted to the subject Supervising Judge, as occurred here, who undertook the
appointment of the Special Prosecutor in the underlying matter. As such, it is denied the
Page: 1 Received in Supreme Court
V Wale Applicant has presented a meritorious Application.
5. Denied. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations of this Paragraph, and therefore deny the same. By way of further
answer, the Respondent is not aware of any injury or damage that would be caused Applicant in
testifying before the Thirty-Fifth Investigating Grand Jury under the subpoenas issued him.
6. Denied. It is denied the this Honorable Court's determination on the legality of the
appointment the Special Prosecutor is a matter of immediate concern and of substantial public
interest. To the contrary the appointment of the Special Prosecutor should not be at issue
warranting immediate review.
WHEREFORE,the Emergency Application for Stay ofGrand Jury Proceedings filed by
Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. # 81858 Plymouth Greene Office Campus 1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D-3 Plymouth Meeting,PA 19464-2484 (484)674-2899 Special Prosecutor of Investigating Grand July No. 435
DATED:
Page: 2 VERIFICATION 1, Thomas E. Carluccio, Esq. as Special Prosecutor to the Investigating Grand Jury No #35
appointed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, hereby state that after due diligence and investigation into
the operative events underlying the subject matter of the Emergency Application for Stay of Grand
Jury Proceedings filed of record with the Court by Patrick R. Reese, I hereby represent that the
averments set forth in the foregoing Answer to the said Application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the
penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. # 81858 Plymouth Greene Office Campus 1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D-3 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19464-2484 (484)674-2899 Special Prosecutor of Investigating Grand Jury No. #35 UNSEALED PER Filet" 6uprerne Cowl ORDER OF THE JAN 9 206 COURT DATED AUGUST 26, 2015 Mi FILED UNDER SEAL
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PA SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: NO. 2 MM 2015
THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE ; MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : M.D. 2644-2012
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ANSWERS OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO THE FOLLOWING FILINGS OF RECORD OF PATRICK R. REESE:
1. THE EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF 2. THE EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY OF GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS 3. THE EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ORIGINAL PROCESS
Thomas E. Carluccio, Special Prosecutor to the Investigatory Grand Jury hereby submits
this Memorandum of Law in support of his answers to three (3) pleadings of filed by Patrick R.
Reese, being: (i) the Emergency Application for Extraordinary Relief; (ii) the Emergency
Application for Stay of Grand Jury Proceedings; and (iii) the Emergency Application for Leave
to File Original Process (collectively hereinafter sometimes referenced, the "Claims").
I. BACKGROUND
Patrick R. Reese (Reese") the Applicant hereunder has filed of record the three (3)
aforementioned pleadings, all of which are designed to avoid his appearance and testimony
before the Thirty-Fifth Investigating Grand Jury under subpoena scheduled on 1/12/15. In
seeking to avoid testifying Reese has adopted a tact of challenging the subpoena requiring his
iddle 1/12/15 testimony, the legal authority of the Supervising Judge of the Thirty-Fifth Statewide
Investigating Grand Jury to empanel and supervise the Thirty-Fifth Investigating Grand Jury, to
appoint a Special Prosecutor thereto, and to seek this Honorable Court's immediate review.
Supervising Judge, William R. Carpenter, has issued his Opinion ofrecord with this
Court on 1/9/15.
Thomas E. Carluccio, Esq., as appointed Special Prosecutor has timely filed his Answers to
the three(3) Applications, and presents this Legal Memorandum in support thereof.
II. ARGUMENT
A. Reese lacks standing to bring a.Quo Warranto Action as expressed or implied in his Claims.
In the interest ofjudicial economy, the Special Prosecutor adopts in full the discussion
and legal analysis set forth in Supervising Judge Carpenter's Opinion as dispositive on the issues
raised by Reese in his Claims.
The case law cited by Supervising Judge Carpenter is acknowledged to be prevailing law,
and provides that an individual does not possess proper standing to undertake a Quo Warranto
Action unless they distinguish themselves to maintain a special right or interest from that of the
general public. Here, Reese fails to distinguish himself as required. His only "damage or
special interest" is an interest to avoid testifying before an investigating grand jury, where to do
so has not been shown to be overzealously sought by the Special Prosecutor nor would result in
damage to Reese.
Accordingly, is clear that Reese has a lack of standing to pursue a Quo Warranto Action in this
matter.
Page: 2 B. The annointment of Special Prosecutor Carluccio was proper.
In short, both statutory and case law, including without limitation 42 §4544 of THE
INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY ACT are clear that upon Order of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
to empanel a multicounty investigating grand jury, the designated Supervising Judge has the
legal authority and plenary supervising authority to appoint a Special Prosecutor. All
requirements under 42§4544, including without limitation the Application of the Attorney
General for an Order to convene a multicounty investigating grand jury, an Order ofthe Supreme
Court to such effect, designation of a Supervising Judge, and his/her appointment of a Special
Prosecutor are all appropriately and lawfully found in the underlying matter.
Further, there is sufficient legal precedent for a Supervising Judge to appoint a special
prosecutor and/or oversee grand jury proceedings. See In re Dauphin County Fourth
Investigating Grand Jury, 610 Pa. 296, 19 A.3d 491 (2014); In Re Twenty-Fourth Statewide
Investigating Grand Jury, 907 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2006); In re June 1979 Allegheny County
Investigating Grand Jury, 415 A.2d 73, 78 (Pa. 1980). Castellani v. The Scranton Times, 956
A.2d 937(PA. 2008).
Again, Supervising Judge Carpenter's legal analysis, in addition to the above, is adopted
here as though more fully set forth herein.
In view of the foregoing, there was no improprieties in both the authority of Supervising
Judge Carpenter, and in his subsequent appointment of Special Prosecutor Carluccio which
warrant a review of the concern, and would lead to a recognized lawful basis upon which the
subpoena served upon Reese should be quashed. As such, his testimony should proceed without
further incident.
Page: 3 C. A subpoena is an appropriate power within the authoritv afforded the Special .Prosecutor in furtherance of his duties to undertake the investi2ation in this matter; and there are no leial defects in the issuance of the subpoena serviced upon Reese in this matter.
The authority of a Special Prosecutor to utilize the power of a subpoena on behalf of an
investigating grand jury is clear. 42 Pa.C.S. §4542 provides authority to the Special Prosecutor
to compel the attendance of investigating witnesses, and provides in relevant part as follows:
§4542 Investigative resources of the grand jury
"The power to compel the attendance of investigating witnesses; the power to compel the testimony of investigating witnesses under oath; the power to take investigating testimony from witnesses who have been granted immunity; the power to require the production of documents, records and other evidence;. .."
In addressing the authority to subpoena a witness, Judge Savitt adroitly opined in his
serninal publication, Pennsylvania Grand Jury Practice, quoted in IN RE: Special Investigating
Grand Jury ofApril 26, 1984, 37 PA. D &C 3d 516) 1986 at page 520:
"It can be seen from a reading of these excerpts from the act that broad subpoena power is vested in the investigating authority. The rationale is apparent. Without such authority, how could a prosecutor effectively investigate and ferret out crime? To follow the narrow construction that appellants desire would have a chilling effect on any and all types of investigation. It would defeat the very purpose of the act." Judge Savitt, Pennsylvania Grand Jury Practice, §21.04(A)(3) at p. 92-93,§21.04(C)(3) at p. 96 (1983).
In conclusion, it is irrefutable that the Special Prosecutor at all times material to
this concern maintained the requisite authority to issue a subpoenas to witnesses, and under the
facts and events associated with the Special Prosecutor's issuance service of a subpoena in this
matter, the testimony of Reese before the Thirty-Fifth Investigating Grand Jury is to be
appropriately compelled.
Page: 4 D. There is no unjust result to Reese should his Claims be denied.
As stated in the answers to the Claims of Special Prosecutor Carluccio, the only real issue
confronting Reese is a subpoena for his appearance to testify before the Thirty-Fifth
Investigating Grand Jury. Contrary to his assertions, there are no immediate concerns nor
substantial public interests that compel an emergency review of the appointment of the Special
Prosecutor, nor warranting that the subpoena be quashed. Further, as stated, Reese has
articulated no damages to him personally in honoring the subpoena and offering testimony. As
such, his testimony should proceed without further incident.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, and under both the statutory and case law authority referenced in
Supervising Judge Carpenter's Opinion dated 1/9/2015, together with that offered herein, and in
acknowledgement that the Special Prosecutor appropriately maintains the requisite authority under law to
issue a subpoena, as was done here -the Application should be denied.
Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. # 81858 Plymouth Greene Office Campus 1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D-3 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19464-2484 (484)674-2899 Special Prosecutor of Investigating Grand Jury No. #35
DATED: i/V,4C
Page: 5 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PA SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: NO.2 MM 2015
THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE 1 INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS M.D. 2644-2012
1, Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the following:
1. Answer of Special Prosecutor to Emergency Application for Extraordinary Relief;
2. Answer of Special Prosecutor to the Emergency Application for Stay of Grand Jury Proceedings;
3. Answer of Special Prosecutor to the Emergency Application for Leave to File Original Process; and
4. Memorandum of Law in Support of the Answers of the Special Prosecutor to the aforementioned pleadings
all in response to the previous filings of Patrick R. Reese has been filed of record with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
on the 9th day ofJanuary, 2015, and copies of the filed pleadings have been directed on the 9th day ofJanuary, 2015 by
first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to all parties in interest, as follows:
William A. Fetterhoff, Esq. The Hon. William R. Carpenter 218 Pine Street Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Harrisburg, PA 17101 P.O. Box 311 Norristown, PA 19404-0311
T oma . Carluccio, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. # 81858 Plymouth Greene Office Campus 1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D-3 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19464-2484 (484)674-2899 Special Prosecutor of Investigating Grand Jury No. #35 SEALED
UNSEALED PER IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ORDER OF THE MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT DATED AUGUST 26, 2015 IN RE: SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, : No. 2 MM 2015 THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE : INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : : : :
PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 24th day of April, 2015, the Application for Leave to File Original
Process is GRANTED, and the Application for Extraordinary Relief is DENIED. See In
re Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, ___ A.3d ___, 2015 WL 1441830
(Pa. 2015). The stay entered on January 9, 2015, is DISSOLVED.
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re: Special Prosecutor, Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-special-prosecutor-thirty-fifth-statewide-investigating-grand-jury-pa-2015.