In Re: The 35th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury Pet of: Office of AG
This text of In Re: The 35th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury Pet of: Office of AG (In Re: The 35th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury Pet of: Office of AG) 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: THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE : No. 137 MM 2014 INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : : : PETITION OF: OFFICE OF ATTORNEY : GENERAL :
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, in part, upon such terms. Received 09/19/2014 Supreme Court Middle District
Filed 09/19/2014 Supreme Court Middle District 137 MM 2014
UNSEALED PER ORDER OF THE COURT DATED AUGUST 26, 2015
IN RE: THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY No. MM 2014
PETITION OF: FILED UNDER SEAL OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
APPLICATION OF THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR SPECIAL RELIEF PURSUANT TO 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 502, 726,Pa.R.A.P. 3309
TO THE HONORA.BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA:
AND NOW, comes the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General by Kathleen G. Kane,
Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and James P. Barker, Chief Deputy
Attorney General, who files this Application of the Office of Attorney General for Special Relief
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 502, 726,PaA.A.P. 3309, and in support thereof avers as follows:
I. PARTIES
1. Petitioner is the Office of Attorney General of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania(OAG)by Kathleen Kane, Attorney General, and her appointed deputies. 2. For the reasons recited below, OAG is unaware of the identity of any Respondent
but is serving the Special Prosecutor and the Supervising Judge as potentially interested parties,
as well as the Clerk of Court of Montgomery County. See Pa.R.A.P. 3309(a).
II. JURISDICTION
3. The Court has jurisdiction under Section 726 of the Judicial Code, which
provides:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Supreme Court may, on its own motion or upon petition of any party, in.any matter pending before any court or magisterial district judge of this Commonwealth involving an issue of immediate public importance, assume plenary jurisdiction of such matter at any stage thereof and enter a final order or otherwise cause right and justice to be done.
42 Pa.C.S. § 726. Reasons for exercising this discretionary jurisdiction are discussed below.
III. BACKGROUND
4. n June 6, 2014, the Philadelphia Daily News published an article, a copy of tbe
on-line version of which is attached as Appendix A, describing a review of a prior Grand Jury
investigation by OAG.
5. The Honorable William R. Carpenter, Supervising Judge of the Thirty-Fifth
Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, appointed a .Special .Prosecutor to investigate, using the
resources of the Thirty-Fifth Statewide investigating Grand Jury.
6. OAG has cooperated with the Special Prosecutor's investigation.
7. On August 26, 2014„ with no prior notice to OAG, no allegations contained
therein, and no opportunity for OAG to Tespond to any allegations of misconduct, the
Supervising Judge issued an Order under the authority of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4954 (relating to
protective orders), identified hereinafter as the "Protective Order," a copy of which (along with a
related Sealing Order) is attached hereto as Appendix B.
2 8. OAG moved for reconsideration of the Protective Order and argument on the
motion was conducted on September 16, 2014.
9. At the time of argument, OAG was informed for the first time thal an ex parte, in
camera "hearing had been conducted and that the Protective Order against the government
agency had issued as a rcsuh.
10. On September 17, 2014, the Supervising Judge issued an Order granting in part
the OAG's motion for reconsideration, granting a hearing on allegations of obstruction, witness
intimidation, and/or retaliation, but not establishing a date for said hearing. A copy of this Order
and related Sealing Order is attached hereto as Appendix C.
11. The Order of September 17, 2014, did not specify any person or conduct that is at
issue, reciting only, "The subject of the hearing is allegations of obstruction, witness
infinaidation, and/or retaliation." Order of Court dated September 17, 2014, at 1.
12. Also oil September 17, 2014, the Supervising Judge issued a second Order granting
in part the OAG's motion for reconsideration, amending Paragraphs 2 and 5 of the original
Protective Order to make the following persons subject to Paragraphs 2 and 5:
1. Any person who has been sworn to Cirand Jury secrecy; 2. Any person who has or had access to any Grand Jury information; . 3. Any person associated with the J. Whyatt Mondesire proceedings and iryvestigation
Order of Court dated September 17, 2014 (second such Order), at 1. Presently, the Protective
Order affects, as in place, hundreds of employees of a government agency, including the
Attorney General.
13. For the reasons detailed below, OAG respectftdly requests that this Honorable
Court enter an Order vacating the Protective Order, at least to the extent that the OAG and/or any
person of the persons identified in the second Order of September 17, 2014. are prohibited from
3 acts that may be considered to constitute obstruction, intimidation, or retaliation against a
witness summoned by the Grand Jury, the identities of whom OAG is ordered not to have
knowledge.
IV. TERMS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
14. As noted, on August 27 2014,. the Supervising Judge issued the Protective
Order pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. §4954, which permits lalny court with jurisdiction over any
crirninal matter" to issue protective orders "after a hearing and in its discretion, upon substantial
evidence."
15, The Protective Order directs OACi to refrain from involvement in or access to
the investigative efforts of the Special Prosecutor. Protective Order at 1 ¶ 2.
16. The Protective Order, as originally issued, also requires all OAG employees,
approximately 800 people, to refrain from engaging in or soliciting obstruction, intimidation or
retaliation against any witness summoned by the Grand Jury in the Special. Prosecutor's
investigation. Protective Order at 1 'Td 2.
17. • The Protective Order cautions that "any person," including OAG employees,
who engages in conduct constituting obstruction, intimidation, or retaliation may be prosecuted
under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4955 and any other applicable provision of the Crimes Code. Protective
Order at 2 ¶ 5.
18. The Order prohibits the Office from receiving transcripts oftestimony before the
Grand Jury and bars employees of the Office from access to transcripts, documents, or other
infomation related th the Special Prosecutor's investigation. Protective Order at 1 ¶ 3, 2 114.
4 19. The Special Prosecutor was directed to serve the Protective Order on OAG,
Protective Order at 2 If 6, although the Protective Order did not provide for service on all of the
persons subject to its terms.
20. Finally the Order prohibits the disclosure of its contents to anyone outside OAG,
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: THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE : No. 137 MM 2014 INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : : : PETITION OF: OFFICE OF ATTORNEY : GENERAL :
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, in part, upon such terms. Received 09/19/2014 Supreme Court Middle District
Filed 09/19/2014 Supreme Court Middle District 137 MM 2014
UNSEALED PER ORDER OF THE COURT DATED AUGUST 26, 2015
IN RE: THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY No. MM 2014
PETITION OF: FILED UNDER SEAL OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
APPLICATION OF THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR SPECIAL RELIEF PURSUANT TO 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 502, 726,Pa.R.A.P. 3309
TO THE HONORA.BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA:
AND NOW, comes the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General by Kathleen G. Kane,
Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and James P. Barker, Chief Deputy
Attorney General, who files this Application of the Office of Attorney General for Special Relief
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 502, 726,PaA.A.P. 3309, and in support thereof avers as follows:
I. PARTIES
1. Petitioner is the Office of Attorney General of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania(OAG)by Kathleen Kane, Attorney General, and her appointed deputies. 2. For the reasons recited below, OAG is unaware of the identity of any Respondent
but is serving the Special Prosecutor and the Supervising Judge as potentially interested parties,
as well as the Clerk of Court of Montgomery County. See Pa.R.A.P. 3309(a).
II. JURISDICTION
3. The Court has jurisdiction under Section 726 of the Judicial Code, which
provides:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Supreme Court may, on its own motion or upon petition of any party, in.any matter pending before any court or magisterial district judge of this Commonwealth involving an issue of immediate public importance, assume plenary jurisdiction of such matter at any stage thereof and enter a final order or otherwise cause right and justice to be done.
42 Pa.C.S. § 726. Reasons for exercising this discretionary jurisdiction are discussed below.
III. BACKGROUND
4. n June 6, 2014, the Philadelphia Daily News published an article, a copy of tbe
on-line version of which is attached as Appendix A, describing a review of a prior Grand Jury
investigation by OAG.
5. The Honorable William R. Carpenter, Supervising Judge of the Thirty-Fifth
Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, appointed a .Special .Prosecutor to investigate, using the
resources of the Thirty-Fifth Statewide investigating Grand Jury.
6. OAG has cooperated with the Special Prosecutor's investigation.
7. On August 26, 2014„ with no prior notice to OAG, no allegations contained
therein, and no opportunity for OAG to Tespond to any allegations of misconduct, the
Supervising Judge issued an Order under the authority of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4954 (relating to
protective orders), identified hereinafter as the "Protective Order," a copy of which (along with a
related Sealing Order) is attached hereto as Appendix B.
2 8. OAG moved for reconsideration of the Protective Order and argument on the
motion was conducted on September 16, 2014.
9. At the time of argument, OAG was informed for the first time thal an ex parte, in
camera "hearing had been conducted and that the Protective Order against the government
agency had issued as a rcsuh.
10. On September 17, 2014, the Supervising Judge issued an Order granting in part
the OAG's motion for reconsideration, granting a hearing on allegations of obstruction, witness
intimidation, and/or retaliation, but not establishing a date for said hearing. A copy of this Order
and related Sealing Order is attached hereto as Appendix C.
11. The Order of September 17, 2014, did not specify any person or conduct that is at
issue, reciting only, "The subject of the hearing is allegations of obstruction, witness
infinaidation, and/or retaliation." Order of Court dated September 17, 2014, at 1.
12. Also oil September 17, 2014, the Supervising Judge issued a second Order granting
in part the OAG's motion for reconsideration, amending Paragraphs 2 and 5 of the original
Protective Order to make the following persons subject to Paragraphs 2 and 5:
1. Any person who has been sworn to Cirand Jury secrecy; 2. Any person who has or had access to any Grand Jury information; . 3. Any person associated with the J. Whyatt Mondesire proceedings and iryvestigation
Order of Court dated September 17, 2014 (second such Order), at 1. Presently, the Protective
Order affects, as in place, hundreds of employees of a government agency, including the
Attorney General.
13. For the reasons detailed below, OAG respectftdly requests that this Honorable
Court enter an Order vacating the Protective Order, at least to the extent that the OAG and/or any
person of the persons identified in the second Order of September 17, 2014. are prohibited from
3 acts that may be considered to constitute obstruction, intimidation, or retaliation against a
witness summoned by the Grand Jury, the identities of whom OAG is ordered not to have
knowledge.
IV. TERMS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
14. As noted, on August 27 2014,. the Supervising Judge issued the Protective
Order pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. §4954, which permits lalny court with jurisdiction over any
crirninal matter" to issue protective orders "after a hearing and in its discretion, upon substantial
evidence."
15, The Protective Order directs OACi to refrain from involvement in or access to
the investigative efforts of the Special Prosecutor. Protective Order at 1 ¶ 2.
16. The Protective Order, as originally issued, also requires all OAG employees,
approximately 800 people, to refrain from engaging in or soliciting obstruction, intimidation or
retaliation against any witness summoned by the Grand Jury in the Special. Prosecutor's
investigation. Protective Order at 1 'Td 2.
17. • The Protective Order cautions that "any person," including OAG employees,
who engages in conduct constituting obstruction, intimidation, or retaliation may be prosecuted
under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4955 and any other applicable provision of the Crimes Code. Protective
Order at 2 ¶ 5.
18. The Order prohibits the Office from receiving transcripts oftestimony before the
Grand Jury and bars employees of the Office from access to transcripts, documents, or other
infomation related th the Special Prosecutor's investigation. Protective Order at 1 ¶ 3, 2 114.
4 19. The Special Prosecutor was directed to serve the Protective Order on OAG,
Protective Order at 2 If 6, although the Protective Order did not provide for service on all of the
persons subject to its terms.
20. Finally the Order prohibits the disclosure of its contents to anyone outside OAG,
under penalty of contempt.
21. As amended by the Orders of Septernber 17, 2014, the Protective Order now
allows for the scheduling of a hearing on facts as to which there already have been findings,
pursuant to an ex parte hearing as to which OAG was not provided its due process rights of notice and representation, and has "limited" the number of persons subject to the Protective
Order to any person subject to Grand Jury secrecy, any person who has or had access to Grand
jury information, and any person involved in a specified investigation. The people covered by
the Protective Order still would number in the hundreds.
V. ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ISSUANCE OF TIIE PROTECTIVE ORDER
22. The statutory provision on which the Supervising Judge relied reads ps follows:
Any court with jurisdiction over any criminal matter may, after a hearing and in its discretion, upon substantial evidence, which rnay include hearsay or the declaration of the prosecutor that a witness or victim has been intimidated or is reasonably likely th be intimidated, issue protective orders, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) An order that a defendant not violate any provision of this subchapter or section 2709 (relating to harassment) or 2709.1 (relating to stalking).
(2) An order that a person other than the defendant, including, but not limited to, a subpoenaed witless, not violate any provision ofthis subchapter.
(3) An order that any person described in paragraph (1) or (2) maintain a prescribed geographic distance from any specified witness or victim.
(4) An order that any person described in paragraph (1) or (2) have no communication whatsoever with any specified witness or victim, except through an attorney under such reasonable restrictions as the court may irnpose.
5 18 Pa.C.S. § 4954.
23. By its terms, § 4954 grants to the court with jurisdiction the discretion to enter a
protective order and to decide the terms of a protective order, such that review of a protective
order would be for an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 70 A.3d 886, 897
n.9(Pa. Super. 2013).
24. "An'abuse of discretion will not be found based on a mere error ofjudgment, but
rather exists where the court has reached a conclusion which overrides or rnisapplies the law, or
where the judgrnent exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice,
bias or ill-will." Commonwealth v. Alicia, 92 A.3d 753, 760(Pa. 2014)(citation omitted).
25. To the extent that this case presents a question of law, such as the requirement of
a hearing, thc Court's standard of review is de novo and the scope of review is plenary. Id.
26. As noted, OAG was not provided with notice that there had .been an allegation of
misconduct and/or request for issuance of the Protective Order.
27. 'lb date, despite the filing of a motion for reconsideration, argument on that
motion on September 16, 2014,.and issuance of the Orders amending the Protective Order, OACI
is unaware of the precise nature of any allegation of misconduct giving rise to the issuance of the
Protective Order.
• 28. After repeated requests by OAG-, the Supervising Judge refused to even inform
OAG of the allegations that form the basis of the Protective Order or the person or persons who
allegedly committed the unknown acts.
29. As such, OAO has been left to speculate that the incident giving rise to the
Protective Order was an encotmter between two witnesses who testified before the Cirand Jury
and agents employed by DAG.
6 30: More specifically, because OAG was responsible for issuing subpoenas to
witnesses summoned before the Grand Jury, certain members of the Criminal Law Division were
aware that two former employees of OAG', - Frank G. Fina, Esquire, and F. Marc Costanzo,
Esquire, testified before the Grand Jury relating to this investigation On August 26, 2014.
31. The Grand Jury suite is located in the same building and on the same floor as the
Norristown offices of OAG, including agents, attorneys, and support staff employed within the
Bureau of Narcotics Investigations, the Organized Crime Section, the Criminal Prosecutions
Section, and other units of OAG.
32. OAG has been informed that on the day of their testimony Attorneys Fina and
Costanzo encountered Special Agent Michael A. Miletto on their way to the Grand Jury room.
33. Agent Miletto was the lead investigator in the investigation that is the subject of
the Special Prosecutor's inquiry and he previously testified before the Grand Jury.
34. The precise nature of the encounter between Agent Miletto and Attorneys • Fina
and Costanzo is unclear, but it appears to have given rise to the Protective Order because the
Protective Order was issued the next day; again, OAG can only surmise because the Supervising
Judge has refused to reveal the nature of the incident or who was involved.
35. Agent Miletto denies that he em., ,aged in any act of obstruction, intimidation, or
retaliation on August 26, 2014, or that any act of his could reasonably be construed as such; to
the contrary, according to Agent Miletto, he and at least one other agent believed that Attorney
Fina was trying to intimidate Agent Miletto.
36. Agent Miletto indicates that he .has multiple witnesses to his actions and the
actions of Attorney Fina on August 26, 2014.
7 37. The issuance of the Protective Order with no prior notice to Agent Miletto, OAG,
or the approximately 800 persons subject to the Protective Order was an abuse of discretion.
38. The Special Prosecutor has indicated that another OACT agent entered a room
occupied by the Special Prosecutor, Attorney Fina, and Attorney Costanzo, stared in a hostile
manner at Attorney Fina and Attorney Costanza and demanded to speak to the Special
Prosecutor.
39. According to the Special Prosecutor, the agent told him, in strong language, that
the proceeding was ridiculous and that Attomevs Fina and Costanzo could not be trusted.
40. As a matter of fundamental procedural due process, an individual rnay not be
deprived of a constitutionally protected interest without a hearing, and a hearing requires notice
and an opportunity to be heard; it follows that the opportunity to be heard must be at a
meaningful time and in a meaningful rnanner. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333
(1)76); Commonwealth v. Maldonado,838 A.2d 710, 714(Pa. 2003).
41. OAG and its employees, including the agents described above, have never been
heard in any way, much less in a rneaningful time and manner, with respect to issuance of the
42. 'Mere is no reasonable basis for concluding that every employee of OAG is likely
to engage in intimidating activity or retaliatory conduct based on testimony before the Grand
Jury, especially since (a) the vast majority of OACi employees have no contact with the Cirand
Jury and would be completely unaware of the Special Prosecutor's investigation,(b) even among
those employees who have contact with the Grand Jury, most would be completely unaware of
the Special Prosecutor's investigation (as just one example, it is difficult to imagine that a
Medicaid Fraud_ investigator in Pittsburgh would have any knowledge of, or interest in, a "leak"
8 investigation involving the Norristown Grand jury), and (c) there have been no reports of any
contact with witnesses apart from the incidents involving the agents.
43. Contact between the witnesses and the agents cannot reasonably constitute
intimidation given that OAG agents work on the premises and especially since both Attorney
Fina and Attorney Costanzo are career prosecutors who have worked with, directed and
supervised agents on many occasions.
44. The Protective Order constitutes an abuse of discretion because OAG was never
given notice and no hearing, as required to satisfy basic due process, was conducted.
45. The Protective Order constitutes an abuse of discretion because the individual
employees subject to the Protective Order were never given notice and no hearing, as required to
satisfy basic due process, was conducted.
46. Assuming that the incidents involving Attorney Fina and the Agents are the basis
for the issuance of the Protective Order, the Protective Order constitutes an abuse of discretion
because the conduct of the agents cannot reasonably be construed as an act of intimidation,
obstruction, or retaliation.
47. Assuming that the incidents involving Attorney Fina and the agents are the basis
for the issuance of the Protective Order, the Protective Order constitutes an abuse of discrefion
because the conduct of the agents cannot reasonably be attributed to every employee of OAG.
48. Assuming that the incidents involving Attorney Fina and the agents are the basis
for the issuance of the Protective Order, the Protective Order constitutes an abuse of discretion
because there is no evidence that the agents supervisors were aware that they would engage in
intimidation, obstruction, or retaliation, or that they had engaged in such conduct in the past, and
so the conduct of the agents cannot reasonably be attributed to OAG as a whole.
9 49. The Protective Order constitutes an abuse of discretion because the scope of the
Protective Order, in terms of both the persons subject to the Order and the conduct covered by
the Order, is far broader than necessary to protect any witness before the Grand Jury.
50. The Protective Order constitutes an abase of discretion because persons who
violate the Order are subjected to the jurisdietion of the Court for purposes of a prosecution
under 1 8 Pa.C.S. § 4955, which permits, inter alia, prosecution for other, substantive offenses
and thr contempt of court, and allows for a .warrantless arrest, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4955(a)(1), (a)(2),
(b), and there is no substantial evidence supporting the exercise of such jurisdiction.
AI. EXERCISE OF jUR1S1ICTION
51. OAG requests that the Court invoke its jurisdiction under 42 Pa.C.S. 726, which
allows the Court to assume plenary jurisdiction in any matter pending before any court involving
an issue of immediate public importance and enter a final order or otherwise cause right and
justice to be done.
52. The Protective Order is a matter of public importance because a governmental
agency with law enforcernent duties and other responsibilities important to the public is subject
to the terms of the Protective Order and limited in its ability to carry out its functions.
53. The Protective Order is a matter of public importance because OAG is
handicapped thereby in its role as a law enforcement agency or otherwise because all witnesses
are, according to the Protective Order, shielded from OAG any act undertaken by OAG
involving any witness in the Special Prosecutor's investigation may be construed as an act of
intirnidation, obstruction, or retaliation, such as:(a) reviewing investi Rations involving Attorney
Fina, Attomey Costanzo, or the former Deputy Attorney General to whom the underlying
investigation was assigned; (11) personnel matters involving any of those persons or other,
10 unknown witnesses;.(c) personnel actions involving any of the various OAG employees who
have testified.before the Grand Jury in the Special Pmsecutor's investigation; or (d) criminal or
civil investigations into any persons, knovvn or unlmovvn, under the Protective Order relating to
If 1, 3, 4, including for actions unrelated to the Special Prosecutor's investigation. 54. Because the Protective Order was effective immediately, the public importance of
the issues presented herein also is immediate.
55. Appeal in the ordinary manner is not feasible because most of the persons
affected by the Protective Order are not even avvare of its existence.
56. Appeal in the ordinary manner is not feasible in that the Protective Order affects
hundreds of individuals.
11 VII. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, through the Attorney
General and undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order
granting this Application for Special Relief and either vacating Paragraphs 2 and 5 of the
Protective Order or remanding the case to the Supervising Judge for a hearing consistent with 18
Pa.C.S. § 4954, or such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
KATHLEEN G. KANE Attorney General
LAWRENCE M. CHERBA Executive Deputy Attorney General Director, Criminal Law Division
if)
By: r_. I M ES P. BARKER - 1
Chief Deputy Attorney General Attorney No. 67315 jbarkerAattorney eneral.gov
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL Criminal Law Division Appeals and Legal Services Section 16`h Floor-Strawberry Square Harrisburg,PA 17120 (717) 705-0098 (Fax)(717) 783-5431
Date: September 19,2014
12 VERIFICATION
• The facts recited in the foregoing Commonwealth's Answer to Petition for Review are
true arid correct to the best of my knowlehe and belief. This statement is made vvith lcnowleclge
that a false statement is punishable by law under 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904(h).
/.%
By: IES P. Chief Deputy Attorney General Attorney No.67315
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL Criminal Law Division Appeals & Legal Services Section 16th Floor—Strawberry Square Harrisburg,PA 17120 (717) 705-0098
13 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK State A.G. probed Philly NAACP leader Monclesire's finances 5 years ago Page 1 of6
Friday, September 19, 2014 Member Login: Sign I Register; f &
2 0 John Bolans' Forecast s Philadelphia, PA phitty corn 1 Search Stjbl
l News I Sports I Entertainment Business l Opinion l Food l Lifestyle Health l More BREAKING HENS VIDEO VOICES/SLOGS PHILADELPHIA NEW JERSEY POLITICS EDUCATION OPINION ontromoEs NATIONAVORLD WEATHER TRAFFIC LOTTERY
State A.G. probed Philly NAACP leader Mondesire's finances 5 years ago
A d vertise Here
Entest MINOS Vid40
J. VViryaa tIondestra.. fanner.Pfa.si'doot of ifK. PhPodei3OhTa Chapter of/he NARL.P on kupast 10. 2Do9.(Da,..qd Maiafeffi Staff Ftwfug.raphe4 Most Welyeti News Stories: High school coach CHRIS BRENNAN, Daily News Staff Writer brarrnac@,phiflynews.corn, resigns in alleged gay 215454-5973:c ; -attack case LAST U FDA TED Thursda y. June 5, 2014, S,45 PM
STATE ATTORNEY General Kathleen Kane is reviewing a 2009 grand-jury 1 Schuylkill Banks ' boardwalk opens investigation ofi.WhyattMondesìre, former head of the , soon NAACP in Philadelphia, and one of his ernployees, according to documents obtained by the Daffy IVews.
Mondesire's employee, Harriet Garrett, and her daughter Pair fight to save NE Philly home after pleaded guilty in 2010 to stealing nearly $220,000 in state son's arrest grant money for a job-training program. Garrett was sentenced to a minimum of six months in jail and ordered to pay restitution. Her daughter got 18 months probation. Odd N.J. divorce case has NFL finks A 2009 memo written by then-Deputy Attorney General William Davis Jr. says investigators "uncovered what appeared to be questionable spending" of state money by Mondesire. Schools in PCPC011os closed for 3rd day
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140606 State A G probed Philly ... 9/19/2014 State A.G. probed Philly NAACP leader Monclesire's finances 5 years ago Page 2 of6
Kane, a Democrat, is now trying to deterrnine what happened with the Mondesire investigation. Gov. Corbett, a Republican, was the attorney general at the time.
MORE COVERAGE Pokire probe shooting at upper Montco cornpleA Christie chief of staff subpoenaed
Mandesire, 64, says he was never questioned and denies any financial wrongdoing.
The 2009 Davis merno detailed for his bosses what had been uncovered about Mondesire and Garrett, who worked at the Philadelphia Sunday Sun, a weekly newspaper Mondesire publishes. Also OP Philly.com A nonprofit called Next Generation Community Development Corp., which is operated by Mondesire, held a state- Unemployment rises in Del. Valley government grant for a jobs-training program in 2004 and 2005, but handed it off to Garrett, who ran another nonprofit called Creative Urban Education Systerns, or CUES, according to the Davis memo. HEALTH: Does ?hilly have a Mondesire was listed as chairman of the CUES board, the doctor shortage? memo noted, while Garrett served as the treasurer for Next Generation's board.
Davis wrote his merno to then-Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina and then-Senior Deputy Attorney General E. Marc Giroux injured at Travel Deals Flyers camp Costanzo.
Corbett, as attorney general, named Fina in 2006 to head a new public-corruption unit and Costanza to work on cases for ENTERTAINMENT: the unit in the Philadelphia region. 'fina Fey talks 'This Is Where I Leave You' Fina and Costanza now work in a similar unit for District $140 & up -- Downtown D.C. Hotel Sale Ulm Fall, Attorney Seth VVilliams. 20% Off
See all travel deals e In the memo, Davis wrote: F000: Volvér drops prices, AWED Err lens;fi tvtgoo * Next Generation's bank-account records, obtained with a eliminates ticket sales grand-jury subpoena, showed deposits of $1.3 million in governrnent grants in a one-year period
Weekly Circulars Another $521,000 in the account came from political JOBS: signs it's time to campaigns, rent payments and the intermingling of rnoney oak far a new job from the Sunday Sun, which is owned arid operated by Mondesire, the memo said
Next Generation paid $2,273 to the Philadelphia Club, a Stag Connected private and exclusive club in Center City. Oet the iatest Philfy.cao Daiiy Hea&rees news/atter RADtOSHACIC delivered ta Our erneR. Si9n tip now! Hot Weekly Deals1 2 DAYS LEFT * Next Generation spent "tens of thousands," writing checks to Enter email address to sign up pay Mondesire's American Express bill for "clothes, food, lodging gas and entertainment and a loan from Mellon Bank. Alceady a philly.sorn rnerneer? (:..f0 Yes (6. 50
There were also checks written to Mondesire and to "cash.''
* Next Generation wrote checks for $169,960 to Charles and Claudia Tasco and their company, C&C Construction. TAR.ET USA: Get The aest OF (Charles Tasco is the son of City Councilwoman Marian Everything EXPIRES TOMORROW
http://www.phi1ly.com/phi11y/news/20140606 State A_G probed Philly ... 9/19/2014 State A.G. probed Philly NAACP leader Mondesire's finances 5 years ago Page 3 of6
Tasco, a friend and political aily of Mondesire's for more than See Mere Circulars 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. Office's documents and twice declined an offer from the Daily News to review them.
Mondesire said C&C Constniction worked on four properties, including the NAACP headquarters and his newspaper office, where the Next Generation non-profit is also located
Me 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?
Mandesire 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
ht-tp://www.philly.com/phi1ly/news/20140606_State A G probed Philly_... 9/19/2014 State A.G. probed Philly NAACP leader Mondesire's finances 5 years ago Page 4 of6
force Mondesire to show them the nonprofit's financial records.
As a judge considers that request, Kane's staff is reviewing what became of the 2009 Mondesire probe.
David Peifer, who heads the A.G.'s Bureau af 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.
Mi[etto 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 fMondesire], and they were going into Next Generation's account and they were being used for fMondesire'si lifestyle - much of it," Miletto told Peifer.
Miletto said he was taken off the case after Fina and Costanza were told about the probe, according to the transcript.
Miletta 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 Costanza 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 decIined 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
Kane's staff is now conducting an extensive review of that investigation.
Fina led the Sandusky probe.
http://www.philly.comIphilly/news/20140606 State A G probed 9/19/2014 State A.G. probed PhillY NAACP leader Mondesire's finances 5 years ago Page 5 of6
Kane, on Feb 5, issued a statement noting that her office's Sandusky review had been undelway 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 Costanza starting in 2010, that used Philadelphia lobbyist Tyron Ali as a confidential informant to tape conversations with four Philly 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 lenient deal "crippled the chance of this case succeeding in prosecution."
Fine, in a letter published by the Inquirer a week after the first story ran, called on Kane to explain her decision.
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: @ChrisBrennanON
Blog: ph.ly/PhillyClout.com
CURES BRENNAN Daily News Stqlf Writm• bre7maef,Sprtillynews.com, 215-S54;5973V
siwrej Tweet r Rditi Email Ru pririts & PEnniFsiorls
Si)are this story with friends who would like it. We recommend which of your friends would enjoy this story.
MORE FROM 'T1-1E WEB MORE FROM PHILLY.COM Cheerleaders From Na Week 2 You Have cieSean Jackson home burglary remains To See (RantSportsj 'open investigation,' Philly cops say 5 Things You Should Never Say at Work Missing Children's Garden director found ;monster) without explanation Dwyane Wade's Wives, Girlfriends Ail 3 hurt in Kensington warehouse blaze Wrapped Up In 15 Pictures (RaniSports) Living in truth means being on guard 3 Things You Should Never Do When Negotiating Your Salary Orionster) Disruptive passenger pleads guilty to interfering with flight crew investing 101: What is a Hedge Fund? (Mandoed Funds Association) 'LOVE' artist Indiana doesn't show at celebration Wal-Mart spokesman resigns over lie on resume (Fotiune)
http://wrw.phi11y.com/phi11y/news/2O 1 40606___State_A__G probed_Philly ... 9/19/20 14 State A.G. probed Philly NAACP leader Mondesire's finances 5 years ago Page 6 of6
Pariners: phMy!co lap Philly DealYo
News l Sports l Entertainment I Business I The inquirer Digital Daily News Digital Edition Parade Magazine
Food l Lifestyle l Health Edition Subscriber Services Subscriber Services Ciassifieds: Subscribe
Jobs 1 Cars] Real Estate I Rentals I Subscribe
Marketplace I Celebrations I Print Offers Newspapers in Education Online I Weekly Circulars
Site Nei-Vices:
Advertise on Philiy.com 1 Rates a nd Specs I Mobile Site l Apps
About Phillv.c.crn 1 Contact Us 1 Terrns of Use & Priva..y§.1aternerA.: 9parlytt2p14
Copyright 2o14 Interstate Genera] Media. LLC
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140606 State A G probed_philly ... 9/19/2014 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: : SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 176 M.D. MISC. DKT. 2012 THE THIRTY-FIVE STATEWIDE : MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : M.D. 1424-2014
: NOTICE NO, 123
SEALING ORDER
AND NOW, this 27th day of August, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED, that the
attached Order of •August 27, 2014 be filed under seal with the Clerk of Courts of
Montgomery County uniil further Order of this Court.
BY THE COURT:
(,) WILLIAM R. CARPEN ER, J. Supervising Judge IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: : SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANLk : NO.176 M.D. MISC DKT.2012 THE THIRTY-FIVE STATEWIDE : MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : M.D.1424-2014
: NOTICE NO. 123
AND NOW,this 27th day of August, 2014,it is hereby ORDERED,pursuant to
18 Pa.C.S.§ 4954 (relating to protective orders), that:
1. The Office ofthe Attorney General, except upon specific authorization by
this Court or the Special Prosecutor, shall refrain from any involvement in,
or access to, the investigative efforts ofthe Special Prosecutor.
2. Employees ofthe Office ofthe Attorney General shall refrain from
engaging in, or soliciting, any act of obstruction, intimidation or retaliation
against any witness summoned by the Grand Jury in the Special
Prosecutor's investigation.
3. All transcripts of Grand Jury testimony shall be given only from the
stenographer or their employer directly to the Supervising Judge and the
Special Prosecutor, no copy shall be given to the Attorney General's
Office. 4. Employees ofthe Office ofthe Attorney General shall not have access to
transcripts of proceedings before the Grand Jury or Supervising Judge,
exhibits, or other information pertaining to the Special Prosecutor's
investigation. All information related to the work ofthe Special
Prosecutor shall be kept in the custody ofthe Special Prosecutor and
Supervising Judge.
5. Any person, including employees ofthe Office ofthe Attorney General,
who engage in any act of obstruction, intimidation or retaliation against a
witness summoned by the Grand Jury in the Special Prosecutor's
investigation may be prosecuted as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S.§ 4955 (relating
to violation of orders) and any other applicable provisions ofthe Crimes
Code ofPennsylvania.
6. The Special Prosecutor shall serve a copy of this Order upon the Office of
the Attorney General.
7. The contents of this Order are sealed, and shall not be disclosed (either
verbally or in writing) by the Office ofthe Attorney General to any
individual outside ofthe Office ofthe Attorney General under penalty of
contempt of court. BY THE COURT:
Cja2LE C potli-Vir WILLIAM R. CARPENTE J. Supervising Judge
Copies sent on August 27,2014 By First Class Mail to: Kathleen G. Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General Thomas E. Carluecio, Esquire THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK IN THE COURT oy: COMMON MEM MONTGOMERY cQUNTY:f PENN$YLVANIA IN RE: SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA . N.176 M.D. MISC. DKT.2012 THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS INVESAIGATINQf; -ND JURY : M.D. 2644-2012 : NOTICE NO. 123
OIWER
AND NOW,this . . day of September, 2014, it Iglerebÿ ORDERED that the attached.. fikPd on Septernbe 2014, be and is hereby :s:ekded.
WILIJAM CARPENTER SupefOsing hidge ThirtSi-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grtimd Atry IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
1N RE: : SUPREME COURTOF PENNSYLVA:NIA NO. 176 WO,MISc DKr., 2012 THE THIRTY-RVE STATEWIDE MONTGOMERY COUNTY Cat ON PLEAS mEsTicAmc GRAND IVRY IVID: 1424-2014
AND NOW, this 17th day of Septernher„2014, in the exercise of its discretion after an in camera hearing and a Finding of substantial evidence, this Court issued a Prote0ive. Order; And upon consideration of the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the •Office of Attorney General relating to the Order of Court issued August 27, 2014,y. apd Oter Arg,ument, IT IS ORDERED that a further :bearing related to the issuOne0 of qf ptOteckisiv o pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.1§ 4954 shall be conducted on a date to be ;agreed won by the Attorney General and the Special Prosecutor in th0 chamberg of the SuperVising Judge in the Grand Jury suite. The $1Abject of the horing is anggation$ of ohoimetion, wilmess intimidation, and/Of retaliation. OV :HY,CO AT:
WILLIAM Supervising Judge
Copies• sent on September 17, 2014 By First Class Alai' to: Thomas E. Carluecio, Esquire arnes 13arker, Esquire IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: : SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 176 M.D. IVIISC. DKT.2012 THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE : MONTCOMERY COUNTY COMMONPLE. S INVESTIGATING GRAND IIJRY : M.D. 2644-2012
!OTICE
AND NOW,this ta.y ofSepternber,2014, it is hereby ORDERED that the attached
filed on gepternbet 014,.be and is hereby sealed.
WILLIAM R. CARPENTER Supervising Judge Thirty-Fifth Statewide InVe.stigating cirand Jury IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: : SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 176 M.D. MISC DKT.2012 THE THIRTY-FIVE STATEWME : MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : M.D. 1424-2014
; NOTICE NO. 123
AND NOW,this 17th day.of Septernber, 2014, in the exercise of its discretion after an in camera hearing and a finding of substantial evidence, this Court issued a Protective Order; And upon consideration of the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Office of Attorney General relating to the Order of Court issued August 27, 2014, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED in part as to Paragraphs 2 and 5 of said Order, and the following persons only shall be subject to Paragraphs 2 and 5 of said Order: 1. Any person who has been sworn to Grand Jury secrecy. 2. Any person who has or had access to any Grand Jury information. 3. Any person associated with the J. Whyatt Mondesirc proceedings and investigation. Additionally, Paragraph 7 of said Order is modified to allow communication reaarcling the Order with counsel for a person subject to the Order, for purposes of appeal, and for any other, sirnilar purpose required by law, BY THE COUR'
WTI JAM,It. CARPEN't .Supervising Jucige
Copies sent On Nowmber 7, 201.4 13y First Class Mail to: Thothas E, Carlucci°, Esquire lames 134ker, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I arn this day serving one copy of the foregoing Application of the
Office of Attorney General thr Special Relief pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 502, 726, Pa.R.A.P.
3309 upon the persons and in the manner indicated below:
Via U.S. Firsl-Class Mail, Postage pre-paid:
The Honorable Williarn R. Carpenter Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Plymouth Greene Office Carnpus Montgomery County Courthouse 1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D3 P.O. Box 311 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462-2484 Norristown,PA 19404-0311 (484)674-2899 (610) 278-5902 (Special Prosecutor) (Supervising Judge)
Ann Thomburg Weiss, Clerk of Courts Montgomery County Clerk of Courts Office P.O. Box 311 Norristown, PA 19404,-0311 (610)278-3346 (Clerk of Courts)
By: JAMES P. BARKER Chief Deputy Attorney General Attorney No.67315
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL Criminal Law Division Appeals & Legal Services Section 16th Floor-Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 (717)705-0098
14 Received 09/19/2014 Supreme Court Middle District
IN RE: THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE : INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : No. ___ MM 2014 : PETITION OF: : FILED UNDER SEAL OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL :
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF UNDER SEAL
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA:
AND NOW, comes the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General by Kathleen G. Kane,
Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and James P. Barker, Chief Deputy
Attorney General, who files this Motion for Leave to File Application for Relief under Seal, and
in support thereof avers as follows:
1. Concurrent with the filing of this Motion, Petitioner, Office of Attorney General
of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania(OAG)by Kathleen Kane, Attorney General, is filing an
Application for Special Relief pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 502, 726,Pa.R.A.P. 3309.
2. By its Application for Special Relief, OAG seeks to challenge the issuance of a
Protective Order by the Supervising Judge of the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand
Jury. 3. Of necessity, the Application for Special Relief recites matters occurring before
the Grand Jury and/or matters subject to Sealing Orders signed by the Supervising Judge of the
Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury.
WHEREFORE, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, through the Attorney
General and undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order
granting this Motion for Leave to File Application for Relief under Seal and sealing this Motion,
the Application of the Office of Attorney General for Special Relief pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §§
502, 726, Pa.R.A.P. 3309, and any future documents filed in this matter pending further Order of
Court.
KATHLEEN G.KANE Attorney General
LAWRENCE M.CHERBA Executive Deputy Attorney General Director, Criminal Law Division
By: JAMES P. BARKER Chief Deputy Attorney General Attorney No.67315 jbarker@attorneygeneral.gov
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL Criminal Law Division Appeals and Legal Services Section 16th Floor-Strawberry Square Harrisburg,PA 17120 (717)705-0098 (Fax)(717)783-5431
2 VERIFICATION
The facts recited in the foregoing Commonwealth’s Answer to Petition for Review are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. This statement is made with knowledge
that a false statement is punishable by law under 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904(b).
By: JAMES P. BARKER Chief Deputy Attorney General Attorney No.67315
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL Criminal Law Division Appeals & Legal Services Section 16th Floor—Strawberry Square Harrisburg,PA 17120 (717)705-0098
3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving one copy of the foregoing Motion for Leave to
File Application for Relief under Seal upon the persons and in the manner indicated below:
Via U.S. First-Class Mail, Postage pre-paid:
The Honorable William R. Carpenter Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Plymouth Greene Office Campus Montgomery County Courthouse 1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D3 P.O. Box 311 Plymouth Meeting,PA 19462-2484 Norristown,PA 19404-0311 (484)674-2899 (610)278-5902 (Special Prosecutor) (Supervising Judge)
Ann Thornburg Weiss, Clerk of Courts Montgomery County Clerk of Courts Office P.O. Box 311 Norristown,PA 19404-0311 (610)278-3346 (Clerk of Courts)
By: JAMES P. BARKER Chief Deputy Attorney General Attorney No.67315
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL Criminal Law Division Appeals & Legal Services Section 16th Floor-Strawberry Square Harrisburg,PA 17120 (717)705-0098
4 UNSEALED PER ORDER OF THE COURT DATED AUGUST 26, 2015
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: : SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 137 M.D. MISC. DKT. 2014 THE THIRTY-FIVE STATEWIDE : MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : M.D. 1424-2014
AND NOW, this 24th day of Septernber, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED, that the
attached Answers and Orders of September 24, 2014 be filed under seal with the Supreme
Court until further Order of that Court.
WILLIAM R. CARPE TER, J. Supervising Judge • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: : SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 137 M.D. MISC. DKT. 2014 THE THIRTY-FIVE STATEWIDE : MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : M.D. 1424-2014
AND NOW, this 24th day of September, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED, that the
attached Answers and Orders of Septernber 24, 2014 be filed under seal with the Clerk of
Courts of Montgomery County until further Order of this Court.
t,) WILLIAM R. CAR ENTER, J. Supervising Judge IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
IN RE: THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE : NO. 137 MM 2014 INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY FILED UNDER SEAL V.
PETITION OF: THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL :
ANSWER TO THE APPLICATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR SPECIAL RELIEF PURSUANT TO §§502, 726, Pa.R.A.P. 3309
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA:
AND NOW,comes Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire, Special Prosecutor for the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, who files this Answer to the Application of the Office of Attorney General for Special Relief Pursuant to §§502, 726, Pa.R.A.P. 3309, and in support thereof answers as follows: I. PARTIES 1. Admitted. 2. Denied, to the extent that this Special Prosecutor has no knowledge as to what the Office of the Attorney General of the Conunonwealth of Pennsylvania(OAG)knows and doesn't know about the identity of any Respondent. IL. JURISDICTION 3. Admitted, in part, that Applicant has correctly cited Section 726 of the Judicial Code. Denied, in part, that the Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to Section 726 of the Judicial Code. III. BACKGROUND 4. Denied, to the extent that Appendix A appears to be a writing that speaks for itself. 5. Admitted. 6. Denied, This motion in and of itself exhibits a lack of cooperation, along with the fact that the Special Prosecutor is still awaiting the Right-To- Know Documents requested last week. 7. Admitted in part, that August'26, 2014, the Judge issued a Protective Order. All other allegations are specifically denied. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. However, attached as Exhibit 2 under separate seal, are the notes of testimony from the hearing that was used to establish the Protective Order. Please note that the Attorney General has not been provided a copy of the hearing. 10 Admitted. 11. Admitted in part, and denied in part. The Order dated September 17, 2014 is an Order which the contents thereof speak for itself. 12. Admitted in part, and Denied, in part. The Order dated September 17;2014 is an Order which speaks for itself. Any interpretation of the September 17, 2014 Order by the Applicant is specifically denied. 1.3. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt . by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1. IV. TERMS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER 14. Admitted. The September 17, 2014,()rder, was issued pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4954. 15. Denied. The Order dated September 17, 2014, is an Order that speaks for itself. Any interpretation of the September 17, 2014. Order, by the Applicant is specifically denied. 16. Denied. The Order dated September 17, 2014, is an Order, which speaks for itself. Any interpretation of the September 17, 2014 Order, by the Applicant is specifically denied.
2 17. Denied. The Order dated September 17, 2014, is an Order, which speaks for itself. Any interpretation of the September 17, 2014 Order, by the Applicant is specifically denied. 18. Denied. The Order dated September 17, 2014, is an. Order, which speaks for itself. Any interpretation of the September 17, 2014 Order, by the Applicant is specifically denied. 19. Denied. The Order dated September 17, 2014, is an Order, which speaks for itself. Any interpretation of the September 17, 2014 Order, by the Applicant is specifically denied. 20. Denied. The Order dated September 17, 2014, is an Order, which speaks for itself. Any interpretation of the September 17, 2014 Order, by the Applicant is specifically denied. 21. Denied. The September 17, 2014 Order, granting in part the Motion for Reconsideration is an Order, which speaks for itself. Any interpretation of that order by the Applicant is specifically denied. V. ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ISSUANCE OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER 22. Admitted, in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that this Judge relied on 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4954 in issuing the September 17, 2014, Protective Order. The original text of that statutory section speaks for itself. Denied, to the extent that this Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand Jury. These ernails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1. 23. AdrMtted, in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 70 A.3d. 886, 897 n. 9(Pa.Super. 2013), sets forth the cited language. Denied, that an abuse of discretion standard is appropriate here. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have
3 testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1. 24. Admitted, in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that Commonwealth v. Alicia, 92 A.3d 753, 760(Pa. 2014), sets forth the cited language. Denied, that an abuse of discretion standard is appropriate here. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand Jury. These ernails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1. 25. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit I. 26. Denied. 27. Denied. The Special Prosecutor is unaware of what the OAG is aware of or has knowledge of. 28. Denied. 29. Denied, as to the contents of the OAG's speculation. 30. Denied. This allegation is speculation. 31. Denied, in that the Special Prosecutor does not have sufficient knowledge to answer this averment. 32. Denied, as a mischaractertion of the facts and this allegation is speculation. 33. Denied, as a rnischaractertion of the facts and this allegation is speculation. 34. Denied. This allegation is speculation. 35. Denied. This allegation is speculation. 36. Denied. This allegation is speculation.
4 37. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand jury. These emails were previously suhject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See. Exhibit 1. 38. • Denied, as a mischarterization of the facts, and this allegation is speculation. 39. Denied, as a mischaracterization of the facts, and this allegation is speculation. 40. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1. Furthermore, if this interpretation were to be permitted then an organized crime target would be allowed in this context to have a hearing and confront witnesses who were being protected for Gand jury purposes. 41. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1. 42. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1. 43. Denied. This Application for Special Rehef is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain ernails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
5 have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1. 44. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit I- . 45. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent atternpt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1. 46. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1. 47. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibif 1. 48. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1. 49. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attenlpt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
6 have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1. SO. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1. VL EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION 51. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1. 52. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1. 53. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit Ï. 54. Denied, This Applicadon for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krurnenacker. See, Exhibit 1. 55. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
7 for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1. 56. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1.
NEW MATTER 1 The Protective Order is not a final Order. It is an interlocutory Order, which should not be the subject of an appeaL No one has been found in contempt of court for violating the Protective Order. 2. The Protective Order has served its purpose to this point. There has not been any additional problems as outlined in Exhibit 2 and in New Matter number 3. 3. Frank Fina and Mark Costanzo testified before the Grand jury on August 26, 2()14. As they walked in the door they were confronted by several OAG agents who apparently knew they were testifying that day. The agents then walked with them to the elevator muttering comments to them. The agents then rode the elevator with Costanzo and Fina to the Grand Jury Room standing nose to nose with them. They were making cornments concerning Fina and Costanzo the entire time in the elevator until someone said to knock it off. They then entered the Grand Jury Room to wait to be called for testimony. While waiting in the Grand Jury Room an agent came in to the room and stared at Constanzo and asked to talk to the Special Prosecutor whereby he gave several statements disparaging Costanzo.
8 All of this information was conveyed to the Court by the Special Prosecutor prior to the issuing of the Protective Order. 4. Vacating the Protective Order may impede the unfinished work of the Special Prosecutor and Grand Jury.
CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Special Prosecutor, Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire, respectfully requeSts that this Honorable Court enter an Order denying the Application for Special Relief.
Respec:tfully submitted,
Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire Special Prosecutor for the Thirty- Fifth Statewide Grand Jury
9 VERIFICATION
The facts recited in the foregoing Commonwealth's Answer to Petition for Review are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. This statement is made with knowledge that a false statement is punishable by law under 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904(b).
BY:
THOMAS E. CARLUCCIO, ESQUIRE Attorney No. 81858
Law Office of Thomas E Carluccio Plymouth Greene Office Campus 1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D3 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462-2484 484 674-2899 (Special Prosecutor)
DATE:September 24, 2014
10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that 1 am thiš day serving one copy of the foregoing Application of the Office of Attorney General for Special Relief pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 502, 726, Pa.R.A.P. 3309 except for exhibit 2 filed under separate seal upon persons and in the manner indicated below: Via U.S. First-Class Mail, Postage pre-paid: The Honorable William R. Carpenter James P. Barker Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Office of Attorney General M6ntgornery County Courthouse Criminal Law DiVision P.O. Box 311 Appeals & Legal Services Norristown, PA 19404-0311 16'h Floor-Strawberry Square 610-278-5902 Harrisburg, PA 17120 (Supeivising Judge) 717-705-0098 (Chief Deputy Attorney General) Ann Thornburg Weiss, Clerk of Court Montgomery County Clerk of Courts Office P.O. Box 311 Norristown, PA 19404-0311 610-278-3346 (Clerk of Courts) BY:
THOMAS E. CARLUCCIO, ESQUIRE Attorney No. 81858 Law Office of Thomas E. Carluccio Plymouth Greene Office Campus 1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D3 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462-2484 484 674-2899 (Special Prosecutor) DATE: September 24,2014
11 Kane to decide whether to release state workers racy e-mails Page 1 of 4
(EXHIBIT 1) Monthly. SeptafTdror 22, 20/4 Limnhor Lavin: Sign in RegiSter f E g
66° John Solaris' Forocasi Philadelphia, PA phitlyfcorn Sukuelt i5 DAM'liEWS
tht News 1 Spurts Entertainment 1 Business 1 Opinion 1 Food 1 Lifestyle 1 Health 1 More BREAKING NEWS VIVED VOICESIBLOGS PHILACIELP1NA NEW JERSEY POLITICS EDUCATION OPINION OBITUARIES NATIONAVORLO WEATHER TRAFFIC LOTTERY
SAVE 40% ON ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS! rt):::.1 CLIO: Fi vi c:ein ..-re,Er. you hi(t/ %Fitt,
Angiel list. prr,1 , 5 r.ii. AUTUNiriosa
Kane to decide whether to release state workers'racy e-rnails The Season BegirfSi DL.IJ Reaeit Ern,3ii 31 COMMENTS September 2-2Et • - _
. . Featuring Lang Lang pedong Mozart's Rarro ooncerto,No. 17 LEARN/SORE 0 'www.phllorch.org
Lutes/ Nett% Video
Pautlayiyadia ASurney Goaurdi Kat/Veen X4,10. l micr-1.4o.[3R VAA/T Slier Piwtooropher. )
Angola Couloombist Meeker Vat Writer Mr.15t Vie,ved News Stories: LAST UPDA TED: Saturday, Scplembey 20, 21114,1.00 AM EDSTFDI Friday. SaMorr,Unt 10, 2014, 10:4S AN Troopers: we're closing in on suspect HARRISBURG - Pennsylvania Attorney nqui7r General Kathleen G. Kane must decide whether to make public e-mails of current and former state employees - some sent over state-owned computers and 4 kids killed in Pa. crash not restrained accounts - that purportedly contain pornographic images, jokes, cartoons, and other private messages.
A state judge lifted a stay Friday that prevented release of the material that Kane discovered during her review of her Sexual assault charge for Phitly lobbyist predecessors' handling of the Jerry Sandusky child sexual- abuse case.
Renee Martin, a spokeswoman for Kane, said Friday that the Ilaverford project office was reviewing the order by Cambria County Court sets off Facebook Judge Norman A. Krumenacker 111 and would decide soon. fight
http://www.philly.corn/phi 1 ly/news/20140920_JudgeJitts_stay on_emailsjn_Sanclusky__c... 9/22/2014 Kane to decide whether to release state workers racy e-mails Page 2 of 4
Several news organizations, including The Inquirer, have Pace lift Poconos asked to see the e-mails under the state's Right-to-Know taw. limits; limit for killer goes on Former Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank G. Fine who led the Sandusky investigation, had argued to Krumenacker that because the e-mails were discovered during Kanes interne! review of the investigation, which involved grand jury material, they should not be made public.
Kane's office countered that the information sought did not relate to grand jury matters and was not covered by strict grand jury secrecy rules.
it was not immediately clear why Fina was seeking a . .
protective order. Fine, who now works for Philadelphia District ...I'M, nil ittild.on IS ETC Dui rwernkrb.1116%.*.Capi-2.• 0,-.4..nax,tith. ' 4...* Mb.. re.wealm treuuera,ffinfruam.rzee. IP. Attorney Seth Williams, could not be reached for comment KVii rre. nediol.a
Friday. Also cm Phiiiy.croor BUSINESS: Kane and Fina have for months been locked in an You're carrying too increasingly bitter battle, one that most recently has nuich personal data on your credit card culminated in a special prosecutors being appointed to investigate whether Kane's office leaked secret grand jury material in a separate case that Fine handled. HEALTH: Online workouts: The The special prosecutor has issued several subpoenas to personal trainer you Kane's office and others to explore how secret records never had became public this year about a 2049 investigation by Fine involving Philadelphia NAACP leader J. VVhyatt Niondesire. rrovel Deals SPORTS:
The e-mails have become an issue in the leak inquiry, with Williams: Birds ate ove1wOrked some Kane critics arguing that her office is using the threat of their release as a way to silence criticism, sources have told The lnquirer. ENTERTAINMENT: A person who violates grand jury secrecy rules may be found One way to avoid guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to up to six months hacked nude shots? 5140 & p Downtown Keep your clothes on Hotel Sale Ihru Fa% in prison. 20% 0II See all travel deare Given the tangled nature of the leak investigation, Kane might CRAIG LABAN LISTED DY TRAV9X0D be hard-pressed to release the e-mails. - 731,r0e, !MAC,. Junto: One of the suburbs' top new Cornplicating matters are Krumenacker's own words in lifting restaurants . the stay Friday TIT
The judge wrote that the e-mails being requested do not JOES: relate to grand jury secrecy and that he therefore had no 7 essential items for jurisdiction over whether they can be released. your job search 'toolkit' But he made it clear that he believes case law makes it very difficult for Kane lo make the information public. He cited court decisions that the Right-to-Know law only covers official SIrry Connected
records and that e-mails of a personal nature do not fafl under Gel Oro ?Mos!Philly.com Doi& iicadfinas newstfeor 6vcrd la yew,' Sigo now, that definition, 0011e..111' ,4•:frosf; r rjj cja
"Here,the e-mails sought are described variously as being Already a philty.corn rnainaar? • 0 pornographic or sexually explicit in nature, and as such do not appear to document a transaction or activity' of the Attorney General's Office, Krumenacker wrote.
The inquirer has reported that the e-mails circulated among scores of officials, from homicide investigators in the Attorney
http://www.philly.corn/philly/news/20]40920 Judgejifts_stay_on_ernails_in_Sanclusky_c... 9/22/2014 Kane to decide whether to release state workers racy e-rnails Page 3 of4
Generars Office to state prosecutors and other officials, as AN INQUIRER ORIGINAL Mielltiquircr well as top Pennsylvania jurists.
The e-mails were sent between 2009 and 2011, when the office was handling some of its biggest investigations, including that of Sandusky and several public corruption investigations involving the misuse of state resources for political gain,
Gov. Corbett, a Republican, was attorney general until early 2011. He was succeeded by Linda Kelly, also a Republican.
There is no indication that Corbett received or was aware of the e-mail exchanges, according to people familiar with the matter.
acouloumbis@phillynews.com
717-787-5934
@Angelaslnk
Angelo Coul bis Inquirer Stuff Writer
Sha. . rD, Tweet Recklit Email 31 COMMENTS Roprints S Permissions
Share this stfiry wi at friends who would like it. We recommend which of your friends would enjoy this story.
MORE FROM THE WEB MORE FROM PHILLY.COM
13 Athletes Who Are Just As Guilty As Shuttle buses on Media-Elwyn SEPTA line Ray Rice (StvieBiaze) for next 10 weekends 10 NFL Teams Who Should Have Their Andy Reld's son settles In road-rage suit Names Forcibly Changed (RantSportsl "Privilege" to be white? Not quite CNN Money: How Young Millionaires Bucks DA: Teacher had sex with student, Invest (CAr(rt4oncy) 14 20 Legal Activities You Probably Thought Camden County College union to Were Illegal (Ran(bfeslylel freeholders: Rehire laid-off workers 15 Dirty Jokes We TOTALLY Missed In Emotions mount on final day of Scottish Beloved Films From Our Youth fReltnery29) campaign Ice Dancer Anna SemenovIch Is Curvy and Not Afraid to Show It(Rantspoils)
31 Comments
ma Guest • Kane looks like she visited Michael Jackson's surgeon too.
Guest • tere& Our downtown Philadelphia professional workplace put a cap on those sorts of shenanigans some 15 years-ago and fired rnany good employees over personal correspondence, non-work related e-mails and those messages that nontainnd ni Ipsiinna hip rewttont
http://www.philly.corn/philly/news/20140920Judge_lifts_stay_on_emails_in_Sandusky_c... 9/22/2014 Kane to decide whether to release state workers racy e-mails Page 4 of4
cornments powered by Disous Commenting policy l Comments FAO
Par/tiers: philtyfcom Theilnquirtr BAIT NEWS Philly DealTo
News I Sports I Entertainment I Business I The Inquirer Digital Daily News Digital Edition Parade Magazine
Food I Lifestyle I Health Edition Subscriber Services Subscriber Services Subscribe Classifieds: Subscribe Jobs I Cars I Real Estate I Rentals I Marketplace I Celebrations l Print Offers Newspapers in Education Online I Weelðy Circulars
Site Services; Advertise on Philly.com I Rates and Specs Mobile Site l Apps
About Philly.com l Contact Us l Terms of Use & Priyacv Statement cOPYright 2014 OD Copyright 2014 interstate General Media, LLG
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140920Judge_lifts_stay_on_emails_in_Sandusky_c... 9/22/2014 UNSEALED PER ORDER OF THE COURT DATED AUGUST 26, 2015
IN RE: : SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 137 M.D. MISC. DKT.2014 THE THIRTY-FIVE STATEWIDE : MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : M.D. 1424-2014
AND NOW, this 24th day of September, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED, that the
attached Answers and Orders of September 24, 2014 be filed under seal with the Supreme
Court until further Order of this Court.
Supervising Judge IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: : SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 137 M.D. MISC. DKT. 2014 THE THIRTY-FIVE STATEWIDE : MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : M.D. 1424-2014
AND NOW, this 24th day of September, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED, that the
attached Answers and Orders of September 24, 2014 be filed under seal with the Clerk of
Courts of Montgomery County until further Order of this Court.
Supervising Judge IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
IN RE: THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE : NO. 137 MM 2014 INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY FILED UNDER SEAL V.
ANSWER TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF UNDER SEAL, FILED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA:
AND NOW,comes the Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire, Special Prosecutor for the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, who files this Answer to the Motion for Leave to File Application for Relief Under Seal filed by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, and in support thereof answers as follows:
I. Admitted. 2. Admitted in part, as to the OAG seeking to challenge the Protective Order, but it is specifically denied that the OAG's Motion for Leave to File Application for Special Relief Under Seal should be granted. 3. Denied. The Protective Order implicates matters occurring outside of the Grand Jury. The Protective Order represents an attempt to prevent retaliation, obstruction, or intimidation against Grand Jury witnesses. WHEREFORE, Special Prosecutor, Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order denying the Motion for Leave to File Application for Relief'Under Seal.
Respectfully:submitted,
By: - Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire Special Prosecutor for the Thirty- Fifth Statewide Grand Jury
The facts recited in the foregoing-Commonwealth's Answer to Petition for Review are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. This statement is made with knowledge that a false statement is punishable by law under 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904(b).
THOMAS E. CARLUCCI°, ESQUIRE Attorney No. 81858
Law Office of Thomas E. Carluccio Plymouth Greene Office Campus 1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D3 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462-2484 484 674-2899 (Special Prosecutor)
DATE: September 24, 2014
I hereby certify that I am this day serving one copy of the foregoing Application of the Office of Attorney General for Special Relief pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §§' 502, 726, Pa.R.A.P. 3309 except for exhibit 2 filed under separate seal upon persons and in the manner indicated below: Via U.S. First-Class Mail, Postage pre-paid: The Honorable William R. Carpenter James P. Barker Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Office elf Attorney General Montgoinery County Courthouse Criminal Law Division P.O. Box 311 Appeals &- Legal Services Norristown, PA 19404-0311 16th Floor-Strawberry Square 610-278-5902 HarrisbUrg, PA 17120 (Supervising Judge) 717-705-0098 (Chief Deputy Attorney General) Ann Thornburg Weiss, Clerk of Court Montgomery County Clerk of Courts Office P.O. Box 311 Norristown, PA 19404-0311 610-278-3346 (Clerk of Courts) BY:
THOMAS E. CARLUCCIO, ESQUIRE Attorney No. 81858 Law Office of Thomas E. Carluccio Plymouth Greene Office Campus 1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D3 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462-2484 484 674-2899 (Special Prosecutor)
4 UNSEALED PER ORDER OF THE COURT DATED AUGUST 26, 2015 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
IN RE: THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE : No. 137 MM 2014 INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : : : PETITION OF: OFFICE OF ATTORNEY : GENERAL :
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 2nd day of October, 2014, the Application for Special Relief filed
by the Office of the Attorney General seeking, inter alia, a remand for a hearing is
DIMISSED as moot. The Supervising Judge of the Thirty-Fifth Grand Jury has
previously granted a hearing consistent with 18 Pa.C.S. § 4954 by order dated
September 17, 2014.
The Motion for Leave to File the Application for Special Relief Under Seal is
GRANTED.
Justice Stevens would Grant the Application for Special Relief and direct Judge
Carpenter to set a hearing date forthwith.
Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this
matter.
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re: The 35th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury Pet of: Office of AG, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-35th-statewide-investigating-grand-jury--pa-2015.