Upload
pennlive
View
226
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
1/216
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Petitioner
v.
SUPERVISING JUDGE OF THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE INVESTIGATINGGRAND JURY,
Respondent
:
:::::::::::
::
No. 171 MM 2014
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 35thStatewide 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 judges 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.
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
2/216
M.D.
i s C .
Dkt
F I 1 e I n S u p f O m e C O U
:
7
O I 4
NOV
1
O
2 0 1 4
IN THE
SUPREME
COURT
OF
PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE
DISTRICT
PENNSYLVANIA
OFFICE
OF
ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
P e t i t i o n e r
V .
SUPERVISINGJUDGE
OF THE
THIRTY-FIFTH
STATEWIDE
INVESTIGATING
GRAND
JURY,
Respondent
N o . MM2014
FILEDUNDER
SEAL
PENNSYLVANIA
OFFICE
OF
ATTORNEY
GENERALS
ETITION
FOR
REVIEW
OF
ORDERS ENTERED
BY
SUPERVISING
JUDGE
OF THE
THIRTY-FIFTH
STATEWIDE
INVESTIGATING
GRAND
JURY
ONAUGUST
7, 014,
SEPTEMBER
7,
014,AND
OCTOBER
0, 014
TO
THE
HONORABLE
CHIEF
JUSTICE
AND
JUSTICES
OF
THE
SUPREME
COURT
OF
PENNSYLVANIA:
AND
NOW,
comes t h e O f f i c e
of
Attomey
General
of t h e
Commonwealth
of
Pennsylvania
by
Kathleen
G .
K ane,
Attorney
General
of
h e
Commonwealth
of
Pennsylvania,
who
i l e s
t h i s
p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g
t h e
Supreme
Court
of
ennsylvanias review
and
v a c a t i o n
of h e
d e t e r m i n a t i o n
of
h e
S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge
of
h e T h i r t y - F i f t h
Statewide
I n v e s t i g a t i n g
G r and
J u r y
encompassed
by
t h e four
r e l a t e d
and
i n t e r c o n n e c t e d
Orders
d a t e d
August
27,
2 0 4,
September
1 R e c e l v e t
f n
Supte o
NOV
102014
UNSEALED PER ORDER OF
THE COURT DATED
AUGUST 26, 2015
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
3/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
4/216
5 .
I n
o t h e r words, h e
d e t e r m i n a t i o n
sought o be reviewed
encompassesfour
r e l a t e d
and n t e r c o n n e c t e d
o r d e r s :
a .
t h e
August 27, 2014
Order, which
s t a t e s ,
i n t e r
a l i a , t h a t :
i )
OAG
s h a l l r e f r a i n
from any
involvement i n
o r
a c c e s s
t o
t h e
i n v e s t i g a t i v e
e f f o r t s
of
h e
S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r
i n N o t i c e
N o.
123;
i i )
OAG nd
i t s
employees
s h a l l
have
no
a c c e s s
t o t h e t r a n s c r i p t s ,
e x h i b i t s ,
and o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n
p e r t a i n i n g
t o
N o t i c e
N o.
123;
i i i )
OAG mployees s h a l l
r e f r a i n from
engaging
i n
o r
s o l i c i t i n g
any
a c t of
o b s t r u c t i o n ,
i n t i m i d a t i o n ,
o r
r e t a l i a t i o n
a g a i n s t any
w i t n e s s summoned
by
t h e
S p e c i a l P r o s e c u t o r
i n
N o t i c e N o . 123;
and
i v )
any
p e r s o n
who
engages i n an
a c t
of o b s t r u c t i o n ,
i n t i m i d a t i o n ,
o r r e t a l i a t i o n
a g a i n s t
a
w i t n e s s
summoned
by
t h e
S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r
i n N o t i c e N o. 123
m a y be
p r o s e c u t e d p u r s u a n t
t o
18
Pa.C.S.A.
4 9 5 5 ; 3
b .
t h e
September 1 7 ,
2014 Order,
which
amended
t h e
August 27,
2014
Order o
p e r m i t
a
second h e a r i n g
- - t h i s
one
w i t h
t h e o s t e n s i b l e
involvement
ofOAG
-
t o
be conducted
on
t h e
s u b j e c t
of
a l l e g a t i o n s of
b s t r u c t i o n ,
w i t n e s s
i n t i m i d a t i o n , a n d / o r
r e t a l i a t i o n ; 4
c .
a n o t h e r
September
1 7 ,
2014 Order,
which amended
t h e
August
27,
2014
Order
and
i n d i c a t e d ,
i n t e r
a l i a ,
t h a t
only
h e
f o l l o w i n g
p e r s o n s
a r e
s u b j e c t t o
t h e p r o h i b i t i o n
of
o b s t r u c t i o n , i n t i m i d a t i o n ,
o r
r e t a l i a t i o n
of
any w i t n e s s and
c r i m i n a l
p r o s e c u t i o n t h e r e f o r e :
i ) any
p e r s o n who
has
been
sworn
t o Grand
J u r y
s e c r e c y ;
i i ) any
p e r s o n who
has r had
a c c e s s
t o
any
Grand J u r y
i n f o r m a t i o n ;
and
i i i ) any
p e r s o n
a s s o c i a t e d
w i t h
t h e
J .
Whyatt
Mondesire
i n v e s t i g a t i o n and
p r o c e e d i n g s ;5
d .
t h e
October
30,
2014
Order,
which
renderedjnal t h e
amended
p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r .
See
c o p i e s
of
h e
August
27, 2014
Order
and t h e two
September 1 7 ,
2014
O r d e r s ,
a t t a c h e d
a s
E x h i b i t s
B , C, nd D, e s p e c t i v e l y .
For
p u r p o s e s
of
l a r i t y
and e a s e
of e f e r e n c e , t h i s
Order
i s r e f e r r e d
t o
h e r e i n a f t e r
a s
t h e i n i t i a l
p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r .
P r i o r
t o t h e
e n t r y of
h e
i n i t i a l
p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r , t h e
S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge
conducted
an i n
camera
exparte h e a r i n g
t h a t
e x c l u d e d
OAG nd t s
employees
c o m p l e t e l y .
For
p u r p o s e s
of
l a r i t y and
e a s e of
e f e r e n c e ,
t h e
i n i t i a l
p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r
a s amended
by
t h e
two
September
7,2 0 4
rders s r e f e r r e d
t o h e r e i n af t e r
a s
t h e
amended
r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r .
3
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
5/216
STATEMENTOF
OBJECTIONSTOTHE
DETERMINATION
Background
6 .
On June
6,
2014,
h e
P h i l a d e l p h i a Daily N ew s p u b l i s h e d
an a r t i c l e
d e s c r i b i n g a
review
by
OAG
of a
p r i o r
Grand
J u r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
See
copy
of
h e
o n - l i n e
v e r s i o n
of t h e
a r t i c l e , a t t a c h e d
a s
E x h i b i t
E.
7 . The S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge
a p p o i n t e d
Thomas C a r l u c c i o ,
E s q u i r e a s S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r
t o i n v e s t i g a t e
t h i s
development
p u r s u a n t t o
N o t i c e
of I n v e s t i g a t i o n
No . 1 23 and
a u t h o r i z e d
him
t o u s e t h e r e s o u r c e s
of h e T h i r t y - F i f t h
S t a t e w i d e I n v e s t i g a t i n g
Grand J u r y .
8 . OAG, which
c o n d u c t s a l l
o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s
i n t h e T h i r t y - F i f t h
S t a t e w i d e
I n v e s t i g a t i n g
Grand
J u r y ,
has
made
e v e r y
e f f o r t
t o accommodate t h e
S p e c i a l Prosecutors
needs
and
h a s
c o o p e r a t e d w i t h
him f u l l y .6
9 . On August
26,
2014,
w i t h
no
p r i o r
n o t i c e
t o
OAG
r any of
i t s
i n d i v i d u a l
employees,
w i t h no
s p e c i f i c
a l l e g a t i o n s
o r
e x p l a n a t i o n ,
and
w i t h no
o p p o r t u n i t y
f o r
OAG
o
r e s p o n d
t o
any
a l l e g a t i o n s
of
misconduct,
t h e
S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge
i s s u e d
t h e
i n i t i a l
p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r
under
t h e
a u t h o r i t y of
8
a . C . S .
4954 along
w i t h
a
r e l a t e d
s e a l i n g
o r d e r ) .
See E x h i b i t
B .
6
The S p e c i a l
Prosecutors
a l l e g a t i o n
t o t h e c o n t r a r y
c o n t a i n e d
i n
a p r i o r
f i l i n g
i n
t h i s
Court
i n
a
r e l a t e d
m a t t e r i s
i n c o r r e c t .
By
way
of example
o n l y , p r i o r
t o
i s s u a n c e
of h e
p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r
OAG:
a) b e n t
over
backwards
t o a s s i s t t h e
S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r
i n
o r i e n t i n g
h i m s e l f t o
t h e
f a c i l i t i e s
and
p r o c e s s u t i l i z e d
by
t h e
T h i r t y - F i f t h
S t a t e w i d e
I n v e s t i g a t i n g
Grand
J u r y ; b)
performed
a l l s c h e d u l i n g ,
subpoena
i s s u a n c e ,
l o g i s t i c a l ,
and
c l e r i c a l
t a s k s r e q u e s t e d
of t
by t h e
S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r ;
c) e n s u r e d
t h a t
i t s
employees
a p p e a r e d
and t e s t i f i e d
a s r e q u i r e d
by
t h e
S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r ;
and d) on
a t
l e a s t
one
o c c a s i o n ,
complied
w i t h
t h e
s p e c i f i c ,
d i r e c t ,
and
unambiguous
i n s t r u c t i o n
of h e
S p e c i a l P r o s e c u t o r
t o , on h i s
behalf
inform
w i t n e s s e s
c a l l e d
by
him
f o r h i s
i n v e s t i g a t i o n
i n
N o t i c e
N o. 1 23
of h e i r
r i g h t s
and
o b l i g a t i o n s
under
t h e
l a w . The
combined e f f e c t
of h e
S u p e r v i s i n g
Judges
Order
t h a t
OAG
ave
no
involvement i n
t h e
S p e c i a l
Prosecutors
i n v e s t i g a t i o n
a l o n g
w i t h
t h e
S p e c i a l
Prosecutors i n s i s t e n c e
t h a t
OAG
mployees
perform
some
of h i s work
f o r him
has
been
t o p l a c e
OAG
mployees
i n
a
p a t e n t l y
u n t e n a b l e
p o s i t i o n .
4
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
6/216
1 0 . As o t e d
s u p r a , h a t Order
s t a t e d ,
inter alia, h a t : a)OAG h a l l r e f r a i n from any
involvement n o r
a c c e s s
t o
t h e
i n v e s t i g a t i v e
e f f o r t s ofthe S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r i n N o t i c e No . 123;
b)
OAG employees
s h a l l
have
no a c c e s s
t o
t h e t r a n s c r i p t s , e x h i b i t s , and o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n
p e r t a i n i n g t o
N o t i c e
N o .
123;
c)OAG mployees s h al l r e f r a i n
from
engaging i n o r
s o l i c i t i n g
any
a c t of
o b s t r u c t i o n ,
i n t i m i d a t i o n , o r
r e t a l i a t i o n
a g a i n s t any
w i t n e s s
summoned
by t h e S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r
i n
N o t i c e
N o.
123; and
d) any
p e r s o n
who engages i n
an
a c t
of
o b s t r u c t i o n ,
i n t i m i d a t i o n ,
o r
r e t a l i a t i o n a g a i n s t
a
w i t n e s s
summoned
by t h e S p e c i a l P r o s e c u t o r i n N o t i c e
N o.
123 may
be
p r o s e c u t e d p u r s u a n t
t o
18
Pa.C.S.A.
955.
1
1 .
OAG mov ed f o r
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of
h e i n i t i a l p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r , and a rgument
on
t h e motion was
conducted on
September
1 6 , 2014.
1 2 .
At
t h e
time
of h a t
argument,
OAG was informed
f o r t h e f i r s t
time
t h a t an
e x
parte,
in
camera
h e a r i n g
had
been
conducted and
t h a t t h e
i n i t i a l
p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r
had i s s u e d
a s
a e s u l t .
1 3 .
On
September
1 7 ,
2014,
h e
S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge
i s s u e d
an
Order g r a n t i n g
i n
p a r t
OAGs motion
f o r
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n ,
g r a n t i n g
a
h e a r i n g on
t h e s u b j e c t
o f .
a l l e g a t i o n s
of
o b s t r u c t i o n ,
w i t n e s s
i n t i m i d a t i o n ,
a n d / o r
r e t a l i a t i o n ,
b u t n o t e s t a b l i s h i n g
a d a t e f o r s a i d
h e a r i n g .
E x h i b i t
C
t
1 ) .
1 4 .
The
Order f a i l e d
t o
s p e c i f y any
p e r s o n
o r
conduct
t h a t was
a t i s s u e
i n
c o n n e c t i o n
w i t h
t h e
a l l e g a t i o n s .
1 5 .
The Order
f a i l e d
t o e x p l a i n ,
e l a b o r a t e ,
o r
o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e
a
c o n t e x t
f o r
t h e
p h r a s e
a l l e g a t i o n s
of
b s t r u c t i o n ,
w i t n e s s
i n t i m i d a t i o n ,
a n d / o r
r e t a l i a t i o n .
1 6 .
The
Order
a i l e d
t o i d e n t i f y
t h e s o u r c e
ofthe vague
a l l e g a t i o n s .
5
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
7/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
8/216
23.
The S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge d i r e c t e d
t h e S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r
t o s e r v e
t h e
i n i t i a l
p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r on
OAG n l y
E x h i b i t B
t
2
) nd d i d
n o t p r o v i d e f o r
s e r v i c e
on
a l l
of
h e
p e r s o n s s u b j e c t
t o
i t s
t e r m s .
24.
N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g
t h e f a c t t h a t
many
p e r s o n s
u n a f f i l i a t e d
w i t h
OAG r e
s u b j e c t
t o
t h e p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r , t h e S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge
e x p l i c i t l y
p r o h i b i t e d
t h e
d i s c l o s u r e of h e
c o n t e n t s
of
t h e p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r
t o
anyone
o u t s i d e OAG
nder p e n a l t y of
contempt.
25.
On eptember
1 9 , 2014,OAG
i l e d
i n
t h i s
Court
a n
A p p l i c a t i o n
f o r
S p e c i a l
R e l i e f
p u r s u a n t
t o
42
a . C . S . A .
s S
502, 726
and P a . R . A . P .
3309.
26.
On ctober
2, 2014,
h i s Court
d i s m i s s e d t h e
A p p l i c a t i o n
f o r
S p e c i a l
R e l i e f
a s
moot
b a s e d on
t h e
i n d i c a t i o n
t h a t t h e r e
would
be a h e a r i n g ,
and
d i r e c t e d
t h a t t h e
h e a r i n g t a k e
p l a c e .
27.
S u b s e q u e n t l y ,
t h e
S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge
s c h e d u l e d
t h e h e a r i n g
r e q u e s t e d
by
OAG
o r
October
1 7 , 2014.
28.
On
October
1 7 , 2014,
two
months a f t e r t h e
i n i t i a l
p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r
had been
i s s u e d ,
OAG
nd t h e
S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r
appeared
b e f o r e t h e
S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge
f o r
t h e h e a r i n g
a s d i r e c t e d
by t h e
Supreme Court
and
a s
r e q u i r e d
by
18
P a . C . S .
4 9 5 4 7
29.
The O f f i c e
of
A t t o r n e y
General
a t t e m p t e d t o
comply w i t h
t h e
mandate of
t h e
Supreme
Court and
engage i n
a
h e a r i n g
a s
u n d e r s t o o d
under
t h e
p l a i n meaning
of
h e word
heaing.
D e s p i t e
r e q u e s t ,
OAG
has
been
d e n i e d
a
copy of
t h e
t r a n s c r i p t
f o r
t h e
October
1 7 ,
20
4
h e a r i n g .
A c c o r d i n g l y ,
t h e
f a c t u a l
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s
c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n
r e g a r d i n g
what
t r a n s p i r e d
a t
t h e
p r o c e e d i n g
a r e
n e c e s s a r i l y
- -
and
r e g r e t t a b l y
- -
based
s o l e l y
on t h e
r e c o l l e c t i o n s
of
h e
i n d i v i d u a l
employees
ofOAG
ho were
p r e s e n t
a t t h e
p r o c e e d i n g .
7
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
9/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
10/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
11/216
44.
O
n Oct
ober
30,
2
01 4,
t h e
S u p e
r v i s i
n g
Ju
dge
e n t
e r e d
a
n
Orde
r
denyi
ng
O
Gs
mot
ion f o r r
e c o n s
i d e r a
t i o n
ofthe
a m e n
d e d
p r o t
e c t i v e
o r d e r
. S
ee
E x h i b
i t
A.
Objec
tions
45.
Th e
s t a
t u t o r y
p
r o v i s i
o n o n
whi c
h
t h e S u
p e r v i
s i n g Judge
r e l
i e d
r
e a d s a s
f o l l o
w s :
ny o u r
t w
i t h
j u r i s d
i c t i o
n over
a
nyc r i
m i n a l
m a t t
e r
m a y ,
f t
e r
a
e a r i
n g
a
nd i
n i t s
d i s c r
e t i o n ,
upon
s u b s
t a n t i a
l e v i d
e n c e ,
wh
ic h
may
n c
l u d e
h e a r
s a y o r
t h e
d
e c l a r
a t i o n
o f
h
e
p r o s e
c u t o r
t
h a t
a
w i t n
e s s o r
v i c t i m
ha
s b e e
n
i n t i m
i d a t e
d o r s
r e
a s o n a b
l y
l
i k e l y
t o
be
i n t i m
i d a t e
d ,
i s
s u e
p r o t e
c t i v e
o
r d e r s
,
i n c l u d
i n g ,
b u t n o t
l i m i
t e d
t o ,
t
h e
f o
l l o w i
n g :
1
)
n
r
d e r t h a t a
d e f
e n d a n
t
n o
t v i o l a t
e an
y
p r o
v i s i o
n
o f t
h i s
s u
b c h a p
t e r o
r
s e
c t i o n
270 9
r e
l a t i n g
t o
haras
sment
)
o r 2 7 0 9
. 1
r e l a t i n g
t o
s t a l k i n g ) .
2)
n
r d
e r
t
h a t
a p
e r s o n
o t
h e r t h a
n t h e
d e f e
n d a n t
, i n c l u
d i n g ,
b u
t
n o
t l i m i t
e d
t o
, a
sub
poen
aed
w i t n e
s s , n o
t
v
i o l a t e
any
p r
o v i s i o
n o f
t
h i s s u b
c h a p t
e r .
3
)
n r d e r
t h a t
any
p
e r s o n
d e s c
r i b e d
i n p
a r a g r
a p h 1)
o
r
2)
m a i n t
a i n a
p r e s c
r i b e d
g e o g
r a p h i
c d i s t a
n c e
f r o
m
any
s p e
c i f i e d
w i t
n e s s
o
r
v i
c t i m .
4 )
n
r d e r t h
a t any
p e r s o
n d e s c
r i b e d
i n p
a r a g r
a p h
1)
o
r
2
)
hav e
no
communication
w
hatso
everw i t h
an
y
s p e
c i f i e d
w
i t n e s
s o r
v
i c t i m ,
e x
c e p t
t h r o
u g h
an
a t t
o r n e y
under
such
r e a s o
n a b l e
r e s t r i
t i o n s
a s t h e
c o
u r t
may
imp
ose.
18
P a . C
. S .
95 4
.
46.
y
t s
t e r m s
,
S
e c t i o
n
4
95 4
g r a n t
s t o
t h e c o u r t
w
i t h
j u
r i s d i
c t i o n
t h e
d i
s c r e t i
o n
t o
e n t
e r
a
p r o t
e c t i v
e o
r d e r and
t o
d
e c i d e
t h e
t
ermso f
a
p
r o t e c
t i v e
o r d e r
, such
t h a
t
rev i
ew
o f
a
p r
o t e c t i
v e
o
r d e r would
b
e f o r
an
abu
se
o
f
i s
c r e t i o
n .
Se
e
Co m
m on w
ealt
h v
Sand
usky,
70 A.
3d
88
6,
89
7
n .
9
P
a.
S u p
e r . 2 0 1 3
) .
47.
n
ab
use
o f d i s
c r e t i o
n
w i l l
b
e
fou
nd
wh e n
a l
ower
c o u r t
has
r e a c
h e d
a
c o n c
l u s i o
n
whic
h o v e r
r i d e s
o
r m
i s a p p l
i e s
t h e
la
w,
r
wh
e ret h
e
j ud
gm e nt
e
x e r c i s
e d s
m a n i
f e s t l
y
10
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
12/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
13/216
53.
OAG
was
n o t p r o v i d e d w i t h p r i o r n o t i c e
t h a t
t h e r e had
been
an
a l l e g a t i o n
of
misconduct
a n d / o r
r e q u e s t
f o r
i s s u a n c e
of a
p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r
i n
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h
t h e
S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r
s
n v e s t i g a t i o n .
54.
Although
t h e
p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r p u r p o r t s
t o
a p p l y
t o any
p e r s o n
who
has
been
swom t o
grand j u r y s e c r e c y , has
o r
had a c c e s s t o any grand
j u r y
i n f o r m a t i o n ,
a n d / o r
i s
a s s o c i a t e d
w i t h
t h e J .
Whyatt
Mondesire p r o c e e d i n g s
and i n v e s t i g a t i o n , n o t i c e
of
t h i s
p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r
was
r o v i d e d
a f i e r
t h e f a c t and
o n l y
t o t h e
governmental
agency
OAG.
55.
The
o r d e r
p r o s c r i b e s b e h a v i o r
and t h r e a t e n s c r i m i n a l
s a n c t i o n s
upon
c o u n t l e s s
u n i d e n t i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l s
b o t h
w i t h i n
and
w i t h o u t
OAG
e t
n o t
a
s i n g l e
one
of them
has been
s e r v e d w i t h
n o t i c e
of
h e
o r d e r .
1
56.
The p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r
was
conceived and
i n i t i a l l y f i l e d i n
a remarkably
p a r t i s a n
f a s h i o n ,
t h e
p r o d u c t
of a
o n e - s i d e d
i n
camera,
ex a r l e
p r o c e e d i n g
t h a t
d e p r i v e d t h o s e
who were
t a r g e t e d
and e v e n t u a ll y s u b j e c t e d
t o t h e
o r d e r
of
any
o p p o r t u n i t y
t o a d d r e s s
t h e
a l l e g a t i o n s
t h a t
provoked
t h e S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge t o
e n t e r
t h e
o r d e r .
57.
R a t h e r t h a n
f u l l y
develop
a
f a c t u a l
r e c o r d i n a
d i s i n t e r e s t e d
and even-handed
f a s h i o n ,
t h e S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge n e x p l i c a b l y
a c c e p t e d t h e c o v e r t
a l l e g a t i o n s
ofO Gs
c c u s e r s a t
f a c e v a l u e .
10
There
i s no
r e a s o n a b l e
b a s i s
f o r
c o n c l u d i n g
t h a t
e v e r y
p e r s o n
encompassed
by
t h e
p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r i s
l i k e l y t o engage
i n i n t i m i d a t i n g
a c t i v i t y
o r r e t a l i a t o r y
conduct based
on
t e s t i m o n y b e f o r e
t h e Grand
J u r y ,
e s p e c i a l l y
s i n c e
a)
h e
v a s t
m a j o r i t y
of OAG
mployees
have no
c o n t a c t
w i t h
t h e Grand
J u r y
and
would
be
c o m p l e t e l y
unaware
of
h e
S p e c i a l
Prosecutors
i n v e s t i g a t i o n ,
b )
eveh
among t h o s e
employees who have
c o n t a c t
w i t h
t h e Grand
J u r y ,
most
would
be
c o m p l e t e l y
unaware
of h e S p e c i a l
Prosecutors
i n v e s t i g a t i o n
as u s t
one example,
t
i s d i f f i c u l t t o
imagine
t h a t
a
Medicaid
Fraud
i n v e s t i g a t o r
i n P i t t s b u r g h
would
have
any
knowledge o f ,
o r
i n t e r e s t
i n ,
a
l e a k
i n v e s t i g a t i o n
i n v o l v i n g
t h e
Norristown Grand
J u r y ) , and
c )
h e r e have
been no
r e p o r t s
of
any
c o n t a c t w i t h
w i t n e s s e s
a p a r t from t h e
two n c i d e n t s
i n v o l v i n g
OAG
g e n t s d i s c u s s e d
i n f r a .
12
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
14/216
58. Although t h e
S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge s u b s e q u e n t l y
a c q u i e s c e d
t o
O Gs e q u e s t
f o r
a
h e a r i n g
a f t e r t h e f a c t , t h e p r o c e s s e v e n t u a l l y
a f f o r d e d
t o OAG
as hollow
and m e a n i n g l e s s .
59. A s r e c o u n t e d
supra, OAG
was p r o h i b i t e d
from
a c c e s s i n g
t h e t r a n s c r i p t
of t h e
i n i t i a l
ex
p a r t e
p r o c e e d i n g
and was
d e n i e d
knowledge of
h e
s p e c i f i c
f a c t u a l
a l l e g a t i o n s which
formed
t h e
b a s i s f o r
t h e p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r .
60. The
d e p r i v a t i o n
of t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n
b y t h e
S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge p r e v e n t e d
OAG
from p r o c e e d i n g i n
any
meaningful
way:
i t
had
no
way of d e t e r m i n i n g
p r e c i s e l y what
a l l e g a t i o n s had
been
l e v e l e d ,
whether r e b u t t a l was
e c e s s a r y ,
and
f
so what
w i t n e s s e s
t o c a l l and
what
u e s t i o n s
t o
a s k .
61.
I n
a d d i t i o n ,
t h e S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge:
a)
r e c l u d e d OAG
rom
c a l l i n g t h e
p u r p o r t e d
v i c t i m s / a c c u s e r s
a s w i t n e s s e s
and
p r o b i n g
t h e
n a t u r e , v e r a c i t y ,
and c r e d i b i l i t y
of h e i r
c l a i m s ;
and
b )
e j e c t e d
OAGs t t e m p t
t o
subpoena
and
q u e s t i o n
a
o u r n a l i s t
w i t h f i r s t - h a n d
p e r s o n a l
knowledge
d i r e c t l y
r e l e v a n t
and p r o b a t i v e
t o an a p p a r e n t
a l l e g a t i o n
of
i t n e s s
i n t i m i d a t i o n .
62. The
S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge
d e n i e d
OAG
t s
employees,
and
t h e
o t h e r s a f f e c t e d
a
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y
a d e q u a t e h e a r i n g
on
h e s u b j e c t
ofthe
p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r .
63. To d a t e ,
OAG
i s s t i l l
unaware
of
t h e p r e c i s e
n a t u r e
of
any a l l e g a t i o n
of
misconduct
g i v i n g
r i s e
t o t h e i s s u a n c e
of
h e p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r , and has
been l e f t t o
s p e c u l a t e
i n
t h a t
r e g a r d .
OAG
s aware g e n e r a l l y
o f :
a)
an
a l l e g a t i o n
t h a t two
a g e n t s behaved
i n an
i n a p p r o p r i a t e
manner
towards
Fina and
Costanzo
a t
t h e
OAGs
randjury
s u i t e
on
August 26,
2014; and
b ) n
a l l e g a t i o n
t h a t
r e c e n t
Right
t o
Know
Act
s u b m i s s i o n s b y
t h e p r e s s
t o
OAG
r e l i n k e d
t o
t h e
S p e c i a l Prosecutors
i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
The
former
a p p e a r s
t o
be
a
b a s i s f o r t h e
p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r
because t h e
o r d e r
was
i s s u e d t h e
day
a f t e r
Fina
and Costanzo
a p p e a r e d ,
i . e .
August
27,
2014.
The
l a t t e r
a p p e a r s
t o be a b a s i s f o r
t h e p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r because
t h e S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge
a l l u d e s
t o
i t i n h i s
October
30,
2014
F i n d i n g s
of Fact
and Conclusions
of Law.
See
E x h i b i t
A .
An y
such
c o n t a c t
between
h e
w i t n e s s e s
and
t h e a g e n t s
cannot
e a s o n a b l y
c o n s t i t u t e
i n t i m i d a t i o n
g i v e n
t h a t
OAG g e n t s work
on
t h e
p r e m i s e s
where
t h e
grand
s u i t e i s l o c a t e d
and
because
b o t h
13
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
15/216
64. The f o r e g o i n g
c o n s t i t u t e s
t h e k i n d
of
a r b i t r a r y o r
o p p r e s s i v e
government
conduct t h a t i s
p r o h i b i t e d
by
t h e
P e n n s y l v a n i a
and United S t a t e s
C o n s t i t u t i o n s .
See
W a l l a c e ,
97
A.3d
a t
320.
65.
The
o r d e r i t s e l f i s i n t o l e r a b l y
vague:
OAG
mployees and
o t h e r s a r e
p r o h i b i t e d
from
engaging i n o b s t r u c t i o n ,
i n t i m i d a t i o n ,
and
r e t a l i a t i o n
i n
c o n n e c t i o n
w i t h t h e S p e c i a l
Prosecutors
i n v e s t i g a t i o n ,
b u t
b e c a u s e
t h e
n a t u r e
of
t h a t i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s
e n t i r e l y s e c r e t ,
t h e
terms o b s t r u c t i o n , i n t i m i d a t i o n ,
and
r e t a l i a t i o n
e x i s t i n
a
vacuum
t h a t
r e n d e r s them u t t e r l y
c r y p t i c .
66.
The
o r d e r
s u p p l i e s
no
d i s c e r n a b l e
c o n t e x t
f o r
i t s
p r o h i b i t i o n ;
w i t h o u t such
c o n t e x t ,
a
e r s o n
s u b j e c t t o
t h e
o r d e r
cannot k n o w
what c t i o n might
o n s t i t u t e
an n f r a c t i o n .
67.
Suc h an
o r d e r
v i o l a t e s
t h e
n o t i o n of
fundamental
faimess n
which our
system
of
j u s t i c e
i s d e e p l y
r o o t e d . See
Commonwealth
. Burno,94 A.3d
956,
966
Pa.
2014).
68. The
o r d e r
a l s o i n f r i n g e s
on h e F i r s t
Amendment
i g h t s
of
l l
a f f e c t e d .
69.
An r d e r i s s u e d
i n t h e
a r e a of i r s t
Amendment r i g h t s
must
be couched i n
t h e
n a r r o w e s t
terms t h a t w i l l
accomplish
t h e p i n - p o i n t e d o b j e c t i v e
p e r m i t t e d
b y
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
mandate. t h e
o r d e r must
be
t a i l o r e d
a s
p r e c i s e l y
a s p o s s i b l e
t o
t h e
e x a c t
needs
of
t h e
c a s e .
C a r r o l l
v . P r e s i d e n t
and Com
s
ofPrincess Anne,
93 U.S. 175, 183
1968).
A t t o r n e y
Fina
and
A t t o r n e y
Costanzo a r e c a r e e r
p r o s e c u t o r s
who
have
worked
w i t h , d i r e c t e d ,
and
s u p e r v i s e d OAG
g e n t s
on many
o c c a s i o n s .
The
p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r
c o n s t i t u t e s an
abuse
of
d i s c r e t i o n
b e c a u s e any
conduct
of
t h e a g e n t s
cannot r e a s o n a b l y
be
c o n s t r u e d
a s
an a c t
of
i n t i m i d a t i o n ,
o b s t r u c t i o n , o r
r e t a l i a t i o n .
Moreover,
h e conduct
of
h e
a g e n t s
cannot r e a s o n a b l y
be
a t t r i b u t e d
t o
e v e r y
employee
of
OAG. The
P r o t e c t i v e Order
a l s o
c o n s t i t u t e s
an abuse
of
d i s c r e t i o n
b e c a u s e
t h e r e
i s
no
e v i d e n c e t h a t
t h e
a g e n t s
s u p e r v i s o r s
were
aware t h a t t h e y
would
engage
n
i n t i m i d a t i o n ,
o b s t r u c t i o n ,
o r
r e t a l i a t i o n ,
o r
t h a t t h e y had
engaged
n
such conduct
n t h e
p a s t , and
so
t h e
conduct ofthe
a g e n t s
cannot e a s o n a b l y
be a t t r i b u t e d
t o
OAG
s a whole.
14
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
16/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
17/216
7 7 . To
t h e
e x t e n t
t h a t w i t n e s s e s
i n
t h e S p e c i a l
I n v e s t i g a t i o n may
have committed
c r i m e s
o r o t h e r m i s c o n d u c t
u n r e l a t e d
10
N o t i c e
1 2 3 ,
t h e
o r d e r
p u r p o r t s t o
e l i m i n a t e OAG
power
o
i n v e s t i g a t e
a n d p r o s e c u t e .
78.
F i n a l l y ,
t h e
P r o t e c t i v e
Order
c o n s t i t u t e s
an abuse
of
d i s c r e t i o n
because
p e r s o n s
who
v i o l a t e t h e
Order a r e
s u b j e c t e d
t o t h e
j u r i s d i c t i o n
of h e
Court
o r
p u r p o s e s of a
r o s e c u t i o n
under 18
P a . C . S .
4955,
which
p e r m i t s , i n t e r a l i a ,
p r o s e c u t i o n f o r
o t h e r , s u b s t a n t i v e
o f f e n s e s
and
f o r contempt
of
o u r t , and
a l l o w s
f o r
a w a r r a n t l e s s a r r e s t , 18
P a . C . S .
9 5 5 a ) 1 ) ,
a ) 2 ) ,
b ) , and
t h e r e
i s
no
s u b s t a n t i a l
e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g
t h e
e x e r c i s e
of
uch u r i s d i c t i o n .
STATEMENT
OF
RELIEF
SOUGHT
7 9 . OAG
e q u e s t s t h i s
Court
t o
e n t e r an
Order
g r a n t i n g
t h i s P e t i t i o n f o r
Review
and
v a c a t i n g
t h e
Orders
e n t e r e d b y t h e
S u p e r v i s i n g Judge
of
h e T h i r t y - F i f t h
S t a t e w i d e
I n v e s t i g a t i n g
Grand
J u r y on
August
27, 2014, Sep tember
1 7 ,
2014,
and October
30, 2014.
16
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
18/216
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE
h e
P e n n s y l v a n i a
O f f i c e of
t t o r n e y
G e n e r a l ,
through
Kathleen
G .
ane,
A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , r e s p e c t f u l l y
r e q u e s t s t h a t
t h i s Honorable
Court e n t e r an
Order g r a n t i n g
t h i s
P e t i t i o n f o r
Review
and v a c a t i n g
t h e
Orders e n t e r e d
b y
h e S u p e r v i s i n g Judge of
h e
T h i r t y - F i f t h
S t a t e w i d e
I n v e s t i g a t i n g Grand
J u r y
on
August
27,
2014,
September
1 7 , 2014,
and October
30,
20
4,
r g r a n t such o t h e r r e l i e f
a s
t h e Court m a y
deem
a p p r o p r i a t e and
p r o p e r .
O F F I CE OF
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
1 6 t
F l o o r - S t r a w b e r r y
Square
H a r r i s b u r g , PA
17120
717)
05-0098
Fax)
717)
83-5431
D a t e :
November
1 0 , 2014
17
R e s p e c t f u l l y
s u b m i t t e d ,
I4/THLEEN
G .
A t t o r n e y
General
Commonwealth
ofPennsylvania
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
19/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
20/216
EXHIBIT
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
21/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
22/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
23/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
24/216
1 0
. The
i m i
n g o f t h e
R i g h t
t o K
n o w
R e
q u e s t
na
ming
F
r a n k
F i
n a
a n d
Ma
rkC o
s t a n z
o
a mon
g
o t h e
r s were
s u b
m i t t e
d
t o
t h e
A t t
o r n e y
G e n e
r a l
s
O f f
i c e
a t
t h e
t
i m e t
h e y
were
sub
poena
ed
a n
d l o r
s
c h e d u
l e d
t o
t
e s t i f y
1
1 I n
h e r
Motio
n o Q
u as h
G
rand
J u
r y
Su
bpoe
na
t h e
A t t o r
n e y G e
n e r a l
t h
r o u g h
p
r i v a t e
l y r e t a i
n e d c o
u n s e l
s u b m
i t t e d
t h a t
b e c a
u s e s h e
w a
s
o t
swor
nt o s e c
r e c y
w i t
h
r e g a r
d
t o
p r i
o r
G
rand
J u
r i e s
s
h e c o u
l d
n o
t
a
s
a m
a t t e r
o
f aw
be i n
Cont
empt
of
C o
u r t w i
t h r e g a
r d 10
a
ny d i s
c l o s ur
e
r e l t
e d
t o
t h a t
Grand
J
u r y p r
o c e e d i
n g .
1
2 .
T h i s Cour
t
i n d s
b a s e
d u pon
u b s t
n t i l
e v
i d e n c e
a s
a
a c t
t
h a t :
A
T
he
r o t e c t
i v e O
r d e r
i s n e c e
s s a r y
t o
p
r o t e c t
t h e s e c r
e c y o
f t h e
S t a t
e w i d e
I n v e s
t i g a t i
n g
Gr
and
J u
r y
p r o c e
e d i n g
s ;
B
The
r o
t e c t i
v e Or
der
s
n
e c e s s
a r y
t o
m a i n t a
i n
an
d
e n s u r
e
t h
e i
n t e g r i
t y of
t
h e
Gra
nd
J u r
y p r o c
e s s
a n d ;
C
Th
e
r o t
e c t i v e
O r
d e r i s
n
e c e s s a
r y
and
a p p r o p
r i a t e t o
d e t
e r
Grand
J
u r y
w i t n e s s
i n t i m i d a t i o n
and
e t a l i a t i o n
CONC
LUS
IONS
OF
LA
W
The r o t e
c t i v e
Ord e
r
s
n e c
e s s a r
y
and
a p p r
o p r i a t
e .
Th
e
A t
t o r n e y
G e
n e r a l
h a s show
nno
c a
u s e t o
v a c a t e
t h e
P r
o t e c t i
v e O
rder
o r
t o
amn
d
t f u r
t h e r
BY THECOUR
T
WILL
IAM
C
ARPE
NT
S
u p e r v
s i n g
Ju
d ge
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
25/216
EXHIBIT
B
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
26/216
IN
TIIE
COURT OF
COMMON
LEAS
MONTGOMERY
OUNTY,
ENNSYLVANIA
IN
RE:
:
SUPREME
COURT
OFPENNSYLVANIA
NO. 76
.D.
MISC.
DKT.
012
THE
HIRTY-F1VE
STATEWIDE
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY
COMMON LEAS
TNVESTIGATING
GRAND
JURY
:
M.D.
142 4-2014
NOTICENO.
23
SEALING
ORER
AND
NOW,
h s
2 7 t h
day
o f
August,
2014,
t
i s
hereby
ORDERED,
h a t
t h e
a t t a c h e d Order
o f August 27,
2014
be
f i l e d
under
s e a l
w i t h
t h e C l e r k o f C o u r t s
of
Mo n t g o m e r y County
n t i l
f u r t h e r Order
f t h i s C o u r t .
BY HECOURT:
WILLIAM
R.
CARPE
Supervising J ud g e
ER, J .
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
27/216
IN
ITE COURTOF
COMMON LEAS
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY,
ENNSYLVANIA
INRE:
: SUPREME
COURT
OF
ENNSYLVANIA
NO.
76
M.D.
MISC
DKT. 012
THE
THIRTY-FIVE
STATEW1DE
:
MONTGOMERYCOUNTY
COMMON
LEAS
INYESTIGATING GRANDJURY
:
M.. 424-2014
:
NOTICE
NO.
23
ORDER
ANDNOW,
h i s
27th
day
ofAug ust,
014,
t
i s
hereby
ORDERED,
u r s u a n t
t o
1 8
a . C . S . 4954 r e l a t i n g
t o p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r s ) , t h a t :
1 . T h e
f f i c e ofthe A t t o r n e y
G e n e r a l , e x c e p t
u p o n
p e c i f i c
a u t h o r i z a t i o n
by
t h i s
Court
r
t h e
S p e c i a l P r o s e c u t o r ,
s h a l l r e f r a i n from
any
involvement
n ,
o r
a c ; c e s s
t o ,
t h e
i n v e s t i g a t i v e e f f o r t s
ofthe p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r .
2 .
Emplo ye e s
ofthe
O f f i c e
ofthe
A t t o r n e y
General
h a l l
r e f r a i n
from
engaging n ,
o r s o l i c i t i n g ,
an y a c t
o f o b s t r u c t i o n ,
i n t i m i d a t i o n
o r
r e t a l i a t i o n
a g a i n s t any
i t n e s s
s u m m o n e d
by h e G r a nd
J u r y
i n
t h e S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r
s
n v e s t i g a t i o n .
3.
A 1 1
t r a n s c r i p t s
of
rand
u r y
t e s t i m o n y s h a l l
b e
given
n l y
from
h e
s t e n o g r a p h e r
o r
t h e i r
e i n p l o y e r
d i r e c t l y
t o t h e S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge
and
h e
S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r ,
no co py
h a l l
b e
i v e n
t o t h e A t t o r n e y
Ge n eral s
O f f i c e .
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
28/216
4.
Emplo ye e s
ofthe
O f f i c e
ofthe A t t o r n e y General
h a l l
n o t
have
c c e s s t o
t r a n s c r i p t s
ofproceedings
e f o r e
t h e Grand
u r y
o r S u p e r v i s i n g
J u d g e ,
e x h i b i t s ,
o r
o t h e r
i n f o r m a t i o n
p e r t a i n i n g t o
t h e
S p e c i a l
Prosecutors
i n v e s t i g a t i o n . A 1 1
i n f o r m a t i o n
r e l a t e d
t o
t h e work o f
h e
S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r
s h a l l
be kept n t h e c u s t o d y
ofthe
p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r an d
S u p e r v i s i n g
J u d g e .
5.
Any e r s o n , i n c l u d i n g employees
ofthe O f f i c e ofthe A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ,
who ngage
n
an y a c t
of
b s t r u c t i o n ,
i n t i m i d a t i o n
o r
r e t a l i a t i o n a g a i n s t
a
w i t n e s s
sumrnoned
b y h e G r a nd
u r y
i n
t h e S p e c i a l
Prosecutors
i n v e s t i g a t i o n
m a y
be
r o s e c u t e d
as
e t f o r t h
in
18
a . C . S .
4955
r e l a t i n g
t o v i o l a t i o n oforders)
n d
a ny
t h e r a p p l i c a b l e
p r o v i s i o n s
ofthe
Crimes
Cod e
o f
e n n s y l v a n i a .
6.
T h e
p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r s h a l l s e r v e a
c o py
o f
h i s Order u p o n h e
O f f i c e
o f
t h e A t t o r n e y
G e n e r a l .
7 . T h e o n t e n t s
o f t h i s
Order r e s e a l e d , and
h a l l not be
i s c l o s e d
e i t h e r
v e r b a l l y
o r
i n
w r i t i n g ) b y he
O f f i c e
ofthe
t t o r n e y General o
an y
i n d i v i d u a l o u t s i d e
ofthe
O f f i c e
ofthe
A t t o r n e y General under
e n a l t y
o f
contempt
o f o u r t .
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
29/216
-4
BY
THE
COURT:
WILLIAMR.CARPENTE
Supervising J u d g e
Copies sent o n Au g u s t 7, 014
By
i r s t
Class Mail o :
Kathleen G .
a n e ,
ennsylvania
Attorney Gene ral
T h o m a s
E.
a r l u c c i o ,
Esquire
J .
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
30/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
31/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
32/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
33/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
34/216
I N
THE
COURT
OF OMMON.PLES
.MONTGOMERY
COUNTY,.PENNSYLVANTA
IN
E :
:
SUPREME
C.OURTOF
PENNSYLVNIA
:
NOl.D.MIC..T.212
FHE THIRTY-FIFTH
STATEWIDE
MONTGOMERY OUN1Y
COMMON
LEAS
JNVESTIGATING
GRANI)
JURY
M
D
6 4 4 - 2 ) 1 2
:
NOTICE
NO.
2 3 .
OJDER
AN
NOW
hs
t L
d a y
oSept e m h er,
1 4 , i t
s i
hrby
Q11RED
h a t t h . a t t a c h e d . ,
f i l e d
o n . . S e p t e m b e t
_
0 1 4 , .
be
a n d i s . h e r e b s c a 1 e I .
WILLIAM...R..CAR.FENTER
S u p e r v i s i n g
T u d g e
1 h i r t y - F i f T h
S
a t e w i d e
I n v e s t i g a t i n g
G r a n d .
u i y
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
35/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
36/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
37/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
38/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
39/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
40/216
S t
a t e
A.G
.
p
robe
d
P h i
l l y
N
AAC
P
e a d
e r
M
ond e
sir e
s
i n
a n c e s
e
a r s
ag
o
Pa
ge
3
f5
Da v
is
want
ed t o
q u e s t i o
n
Mo n
d e sire
an
d p o s s i
b l y
su
bpo ena
h
im
f o r sworn
g r a n d -
j u r y
te st i
mony
about a
r r e t t
CUES
nd
Next
Gen e
ration.
Ne v
er
questio
ned
Mondesire
a
former
/n quirer
e p o r t e r
who
erve
d
as
the
to p
ai de
1
0 t
he
a t e
U.
S.
Re p . i l l
Gr ay
a i d
n
o o n e
fr o m
th e
A.G.s
f f i c e
e v
er
q
uestione
d him.
We
idntuse any
mon
ey o r pe
rsonal g a i
n
Mo nd e
sire a i d .
He
a i d
t
h a t
he has
n
ot
see
n
the
A.
G.
O
fficesd o c
um ents an d
t w i c e
d
e c l i n e d an o
f f e r
fr
om
t
he 0 a 1
1 y
News o re v
ie w
t
h e m .
Mond esi
re s a i d
C C
o n s t r u c t
i o n work
ed o n
o u r
p r o p e r t i e
s
i n c l
u d i n g
the
N P
eadq
ua rters
an
d h i s n
ewsp ap e
r
f f
i e
wh e re
th
e NextGene
ra tion n
o n - p r o f i t
i s
a l s o
l o c a t e d .
We
ought
u p p l i
e s
w i t h
my
me
rican
Expr ess
ca
rd f o r
c o n s
t r u c t i o n
h e
a
i d .
They
ne
ver
a
sked me
s i n g l e
q u e s
t i o n
back
n
20
09.
We
re
hab bed
t h e
b u i l d i
n g s .
We
p ent
mo
ney bu y
ing
s t uf
f f o r
the
b u i l
d i n g s
c o n s t r u c
t i o n and
paying o f f
de vel o
pers.
G a r r e t
t
d
e c l i n e d
t
o
comm
en tab o
ut the i n v e s
t i g a t i o n
s .
H
er
dau
ghter i d n o t
r espo
nd
t o
reque
st s o r c o m m
en t.
T
h e
Ma
y
2
010 ne
ws
e l e a
s e ab
out Ga
rretts
a r r e s t
f e a t u
r e d
C
o r b e t t l a y i n g
ou t th
e c
ha rges.
C o r b e t t
d i d
n o
t r
espond
t
h i s
we e k
o
two
q u e s t i o
n s :
Was
e
b r
i e f e d
o
n
t h e
M
ondesir
e
n v
e s t i g a t i o
n
and
d i d h
e p l
a y
a
o
l e
i n
d e
c i d i n g
what
h ap p en
e d
w i t
h
t
h a t
probe?
Mo nd
esire was usp
e n d e d
by
the
NA
ACPs
a t i o n a
l
headqu
ar ters
n
A p
r i l
a f t e r
h e f
eud ed p u b l i c l y
w i t h
board
mem b
ersabou
t th e f
inances
f th e
l o c a f
chapt
er
an d
Next
Ge n
eration .
Th
o se
board
m
embers
S i d
Bo
oker Dona
l d Duc k
y
B i
r t s
an
d the Re v
. l
i s h a M o r r i s -
a l
s o we
r e
s
uspende
d.
Booker
an d M o r r i s
who
a
y
th
ey a
re t l l Ne x
t
Ge
ne ration
board m e
m b e r s
re
now
s k i n g
a
Comm
on
l e as
ud g
e
o
fo
r Mo nd
esire o
showthe
m t h
e
n o n p r
o f i t s
f i n a n c i a l
r e c o r
d s .
As
judge
con s
iders h a t r e q
u e s t K
anes t a
f f
i
s
r e v i e
w i n g
wh at
be
came
ofthe2009
Mo nd e
sire pr
obe.
David
P e i f e r
who
e ads
the
A. G.s
Bureau
o f S p e c i a l
l n v e s t i g
a t i o n s
o n
March
21
i n
t e r v i e w e
d Micha
el
M
i l e t t o
th e
s
p e c i a l ag
ent who n v e s
t i g a t e d
G a r
r e t t
an
d
Mo n
desire.
T
he
a
l l y Ne
ws bt a
ined
a
r
a n s c r i p t
o f
t h a t
taped
i n t e r v i
e w .
M i l e t t
o
t o l d
P
e i f e r t h a t
h e
su bpo e
nae d Ne
xt Gener
ations
bank a
ccount
the r a n s c n p t
s
h o ws.
Whe
n
d i d t h a t
found t h a t
t
h e r e
wa
s wh o
l e
bunch
of
money h a t a
p peared
t o me
o b e do
na tions
o
th
e NAACP
n o
t
[Mo
ndesire]
and
they
wer e
going
i n t o
Next G
ener at i
o ns
ac c
ount
and
t
hey
w
e r e
be ing
u
sed f o r [ Mo
nd esire
s] i f
e s t y l e -
mu
ch f t
M i l e t t o
t o l d
P e i f e r .
h t t
p
/ /
w w w .
p h i l l
y . c o
m / p h i
l l y /
n e w s /
2 0 4
060
6_S t
ate_
A_G p r o b e
d _ P h i
l l y . .
.
/
0
/20
4
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
41/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
42/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
43/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
44/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
45/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
46/216
VERIFICATION
The
a c t s
r e c i t e d i n
t h e
f o r e g o i n g
P e t i t i o n
f o r
Review a r e
t r u e and
c o r r e c t
t o
t h e b e s t of
my
knowledge
and b e l i e f .
This
s t a t e m e n t i s
m a d e
w i t h
knowledge t h a t
a
f a l s e
s t a t e m e n t
i s
p u n i s h a b l e
by
law
under 18
Pa.
.S.
904 b).
B y :
OFFICEOF
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
16t h
F l o o r - S t r a w b e r r y
Square
H a r r i s b u r g ,PA
17120
717)
05-0098
Fax)
717)
83-5431
Date:
November 10,
014
k4THLEEN
.
Attorney
Genera7e e33i0io to "iret OAG to //et t+e ontor o3 0 n0rro8er
or"er t+0t 8o1" 0""re OAG onern 033etin/ "tie oti"e t+e re017 o3 t+e
S!ei01 Proetion.
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
135/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
136/216
Cot+n?o, + *e + revie* t0e tr+n3ri!t o2 t0e in 3+er+ 0e+rin/, on
t0e 5+i o2 3+e +* 0o"in/ t0+t @+o*in/ t0e !reen3e o2 t0e "e2en"+nt +n" "e2ene
3o1ne in + !rote3tive or"er 0e+rin/ *o1" 0+ve "e2e+te" t0e !1r!oe o2 !rovi"in/
!rote3tion 2or t0ee *itnee. N.T. $(7$%7'($), re3oni"er+tion 0e+rin/, +t '-B.
Ho*ever, t0e !e3i+ !roe31tor, &r. T0o+ E. C+r133io, +r/1e" to t0e 3o1rt t0+t @
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
137/216
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
138/216
NEW
MATTER
80. No e s p o n s e t o
t h i s
averment s
r e q u i r e d ,
a s i t
simply
n c o r p o r a t e s
by
e f e r e n c e
p r e v i o u s
averments of h e
S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r .
To h e
e x t e n t t h a t
a
esponse
o
t h o s e
i n c o r p o r a t e d
c l a i m s
may e
deemed e c e s s a r y ,
they a r e
denied
81. No esponse s r e q u i r e d t o
t h i s averment but o t h e e x t e n t one may
e deemed
n e c e s s a r y , t i s d e n i e d . By a y of
u r t h e r
answer, s e f l e c t e d
i n
Footnote 8
f
h e
S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r ' s averments
a i s i n g New
a t t e r ,
t h e t r a n s c r i p t of
estimony
taken
n camera
e f o r e
Judge
Carpenter e l a t i n g t o t h e
P r o t e c t i v e
Order
has
not been provided o t h e OAG. udge
C a r p e n t e r ,
o s t e n s i b l y with h e a s s e n t of
h e
S p e c i a l P r o s e c u t o r , has o u t i n e l y denied h e OAG
a c c e s s t o
t r a n s c r i p t s
of r o c e e d i n g s , t h e r e b y
hampering OAG's b i l i t y
t o p r o v i d e
a p p r o p r i a t e
r e c o r d
c i t a t i o n s i n
i t s
a p p e a l f o r
r e l i e f
b e f o r e
t h i s
C o u r t .
I . GENERALDENIAL
THATOAG
ASRAISEDVALID
CLAIMSTO
WARRANT
THE
PROTECTIVE
ORDERBE VACATED
82. The p e c i a l P r o s e c u t o r ' s avemient
s t a t e d
i s
d e n i e d .
S p e c i f i c a l l y ,OAG
v e r s
t h a t
1)
h e S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge
abused h i s d i s c r e t i o n
i n handing
down
e r i e s
of
r o t e c t i v e
O r d e r s , i n
t h a t s a i d
Orders
r e
o v e r l y
broad
and
a i l t o
i n d i c a t e which p e c i f i c
i n d i v i d u a l s
a r e bound by h e
O r d e r s ,
nor
i d t h e
Orders
e f i n e
what
conduct on
h e
p a r t ofOAG ould be
i o l a t i v e of a i d
O r d e r s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e
Orders
r o h i b i t
a n y
c t of
b s t r u c t i o n ,
i n t i m i d a t i o n , o r r e t a l i a t i o n
a g a i n s t
a n y
w i t n e s s
summoned
by
h e
S p e c i a l P r o s e c u t o r
i n
Notice
No.
123.
t
i s
well
o
note
t h a t
OAG ould
have no knowledge as o
which
w i t n e s s e s
had been so
subpoenaed
o a p p e a r ,
g i v e n t h a t t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n
was r o h i b i t e d from
being
i s c l o s e d t o
t h e OAG
y Judge
a r p e n t e r .
Moreover, h e
b r e a d t h
of
h e p r o h i b i t i o n s and a c k of
l a r i t y
i n d e f i n i n g what
conduct s
p r o h i b i t e d
under h e Orders
allows o r
t h e
a r b i t r a r y
and c a p r i c i o u s
a p p l i c a t i o n of h e
P r o t e c t i v e
2
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
139/216
Orders
g a i n s t OAG.
Query,
o r
example,
h e
s c e n a r i o
where a
former h i g h - r a n k i n g
OAG
employee
has
r i t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n about
a n n r e l a t e d c r i m i n a l
i n v e s t i g a t i o n s t i l l a c t i v e w i t h i n
OAG
nd h a t former OAG
mployee has been involved
n t h e
S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r ' s
c u r r e n t
i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
Any o n t a c t by
u r r e n t
OAG
ember s
with h e
former
employee on an
n r e l a t e d
m a t t e r
could
a s i l y
be
i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d
under
h e
p r o v i s i o n s
of
h e
aforementioned
Orders as
b e i n g intimidatine
r r e t a l i a t o r y .
Simply
u t ,
were u r r e n t
OAG ember s
n a
o s i t i o n t o
r e q u i r e i n f o r m a t i o n
on an n r e l a t e d , pending
a t t e r w i t h i n
OAG
rom
Frank
Fina, sq. r M a r c
Costanzo,
s q . , t h e
o c c u r r e n c e
of uch
a o n v e r s a t i o n
a l o n e would be u f f i c i e n t
f o r e i t h e r man o
c l a i m such
c o n t a c t
was e s i g n e d t o
i n t i m i d a t e ,
h a r a s s
o r r e t a l i a t e ,
s i n c e
t h e p r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r
i s so
broad
and
l l - d e f i n e d .
Now,
o n s i d e r
t h e
aforementioned
c o n v e r s a t i o n
o c c u r r i n g i n a c e n a r i o
where
u r r e n t
OAG
embers
must
e l v e
i n t o t h e
t h o u g h t - p r o c e s s ,
r a t i o n a l e
and
e g a l f o u n d a t i o n
of
e c i s i o n m a d e
by
i t h e r
of h e
two
former
OAG
ember s
e f e r e n c e d
i n
o r d e r
t o m a k e a
d e c i s i o n
on
a
u r r e n t ,
open, r i m i n a l
i n v e s t i g a t i o n of a t i o n a l
importance. Under h e
P r o t e c t i v e
O r d e r s , a n y u r r e n t OAG
embe r n v o l v e d
i n such
c o n v e r s a t i o n s
would
expose themselves
o
being h e l d i n contempt r
charged
c r i m i n a l l y
f o r v i o l a t i n g t h e
P r o t e c t i v e O r d e r s .
Moreover, h e
e n t r y of
h e
i n i t i a l P r o t e c t i v e Order ex
arte allowed
o r
f a l s e
a n d / o r m i s l e a d i n g
testimony o go
u n c h a l l e n g e d b e f o r e
t h e S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge.
OAG
as reason
o
b e l i e v e
t h e
u n d e r l y i n g
f a c t u a l
a l l e g a t i o n s
and
averments which
form h e b a s i s of
h e
P r o t e c t i v e Order
r e ,
a t
b e s t , l e s s
than
a c c u r a t e ,
and,
t
w o r s t ,
p a t e n t l y
f a l s e .
2)
he
u p e r v i s i n g
Judge
l e a r l y
v i o l a t e d
t h e
due
r o c e s s
r i g h t s
of
h e OAG
t
t h e
R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n
Hearing,
n
t h a t
Judge
Carpenter denied
OAG
h e
r i g h t
t o
compulsory r o c e s s .
S e e ,
Notes of
e s t i l n o n y , 1 0 / 1 7 / 1 4 ,
p p . 1 3 - 1 4 . 1
3 )
he
u p e r v i s i n g
1
I t i s important o
note
h a t
t h e
October
17 t h
t r a n s c r i p t of h e
R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n was
not
made v a i l a b l e
t o
t h e
OAG
u n t i l
i t was t t a c h e d
as an
x h i b i t
i n
t h e S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r ' s
Response. On
ages
13
and
14 of h e
t r a n s c r i p t of h e
heari ne.on
e c o n s i d e r a t i o n
of h e
P r o t e c t i v e
O r d e r ,
f t e r subpoenas
e q u e s t e d
f o r
Frank Fina and
M a r c
Costanzo
were denied
by Judge
a r p e n t e r ,
DAG itka
was
asked
o
p r e s e n t her w i t n e s s e s
and n r e s p o n s e ,
t h e DAG t a t e d
3
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
140/216
J u d g e ' s p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r
sweeps
b r o a d l y and
appears o encompass speech
e l a t i n g
t o
any e r s o n ,
s u b j e c t ,
o r
event
s s o c i a t e d
w i t h t h e S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 4) he r o t e c t i v e
o r d e r
v i o l a t e s t h e
S e p a r a t i o n of
owers
o c t r i n e of ur
e d e r a l and t a t e C o n s t i t u t i o n s because t
improperly
n f r i n g e s
upon
OAG's b i l i t y t o f u l f i l l
i t s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law enforcement
mandate o
i n v e s t i g a t e
l e a k s
from h e S p e c i a l P r o s e c u t o r ' s
G r a n d J u r y o r
o t h e r
c r i m i n a l
v i o l a t i o n s ,
such s
P e r j u r y
o r F a l s e
Swearing.
I I .
CONCERNSPERTAINING
TO
HEOAG
A .
Concerns
Regarding
Development
of
Right-to-Know Requests
83.
Denied.
The
e r i e s of
Right-to-Know(RTK)
e q u e s t s f i l e d
w i t h
OAG
y members
of h e
media began
on
u l y
7,
014
and were
b s o l u t e l y not
general
e q u e s t s .
On u l y
7 t h ,
Brad Bumsted of
h e P i t t s b u r g h
Tribune
Review i l e d
a
RTK e q u e s t
s e e k i n g : Any
mails
r
o t h e r
documents e n t
amo n g u r r e n t
and former AG
t a f f reviewed by
p e c i a l Deputy
Geoffrey
Moulton .
See x h i b i t
A. Moreover,
on
u l y 29,
014,
Steve Esack of
The Morning
C a l l f i l e d
t h e
f o l l o w i n g
RTK
e q u e s t :
Emails
e p i c t i n g
pornographic images,
ideo
c l i p s
and
e x u a l l y
e x p l i c i t
m o t i v a t i o n a l
t o o l s / m e s s a g e s between
2008-2012
among
and
between
employees,
i n c l u d i n g
but not
i m i t e d
t o t h e
f o l l o w i n g : Frank
i n a , Frank
Noonan, lenn
Parno, .
C h r i s t o p h e r
Abruzzo,
h r i s t o p h e r
Car usone, Joe
McGettigan, Rand y
e a t h e r s
and
Tom
C o r b e t t . See
x h i b i t
B.
she was
denied
compulsory r o c e s s
and
not b l e t o
use
G r a n d
Jury
subpoenas
o compel
h e
a t t e n d a n c e
of i t n e s s e s .
In
e s p o n s e ,
Judge
Carpenter
ageed:
You
ere
denied
t h e
use
of h e
G r a n d Jury
subpoena.
T h a t ' s
what
you
were
d e n i e d .
I d .
A t
. 14, n .
15-16. n
e s s e n c e ,
t h e
Court
r o h i b i t e d t h e
use
of ny
G r a n d J u r y
subpoenas and
when
asked
what e h i c l e
OAG ould
h e n
use
o
compel
t t e n d a n c e
t h e
Court t a r t e d :
You
ould
have
asked
somebody .
I d .
A t n .
1 9 . As
a t t e r of
undamental
r o c e d u r a l due
r o c e s s , an
n d i v i d u a l
may
ot be
e p r i v e d
of
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y
p r o t e c t e d
i n t e r e s t w i t h o u t a
e a r i n g ,
and
a e a r i n g
r e q u i r e s
n o t i c e
and an
p p o r t u n i t y t o
be e a r d ;
t
follows h a t t h e
o p p o r t u n i t y
t o be heard
must be t
a
meaningful
time
and
n a
meaningful
manner.
See Mathews
v .
E l d r i d g e ,
424
U.S. 319,
33 1976);
Commonwealth
.
Maldonado, 3 8 A.2d
710, 14
Pa.
2003).
4
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
141/216
84.
dmitted
n p a r t , d e n i e d i n
p a r t .
I t
i s a d m i t t e d t h a t
numerous RTK
e q u e s t s from J u l y
7, 2014 forward were
e c e i v e d by OAG
e l a t e d
t o e m a i l s
between a
a r i e t y
of mployees of
OAG, oth u r r e n t
and former.
See x h i b i t
C.
The
l l e g a t i o n by
h e
S p e c i a l P r o s e c u t o r
t h a t
Hnexpli cably, h o r t l y a f t e r OAG ecame
aware of
h e subpoenaed
t a t u s
of
e r t a i n
w i t n e s s e s i n
mid-August 2014 h e
f l u r r y of
RTK
e q u e s t s began s
vehemently
denied and t r i c t
proof
of
s a i d
a l l e g a t i o n i s
demanded.
As
e f e r e n c e d above, h e
S p e c i a l P r o s e c u t o r ' s own verments
r e
f a c t u a l l y
i n c o r r e c t
a s
they e l a t e
t o t h e t i m e l i n e
of
RTK e q u e s t s . The p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r
f i r m l y
s t a t e s
t h a t i n mid-August
2014
OAG ecame
aware of i s
i n v e s t i g a t i o n and
h e
RTK
e q u e s t s
t h e n
began
o be
i l e d
w i t h OAG. That
s simply not r u e .
The i r s t
RTK
e q u e s t
f o r emails
of
c u r r e n t and former
employees was e c e i v e d on
u l y
7, 014. I t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e
house
of a r d s
b u i l t by
h e
S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r ,
i n
s e c r e t ,
without e s t i n g of
t s
v e r a c i t y ,
i s based upon a i n g u l a r
assumption:RTK
e q u e s t s were l l e g e d l y
harmful o Fran k Fina and
M a r c Costanzo and h e
d i s c l o s u r e of
m a i l s
r e l a t e d
t o
e i t h e r
o r
both
may
ampen h e i r d e s i r e
t o
t e s t i f y f o r t h e
S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r . The
a c t s
simply do
not e a r
out h e S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r ' s
h y p o t h e s i s .
Furthermore,
i t i s important h a t
t h i s
Court s aware h a t a s
f a r back a s
March
2014, V I r .
Fina
had
e q u e s t e d h i s
emails which had
been
e t r i e v e d
i n t h e
review of h e
J e r r y
Sandusky
c a s e ,
OAG
s s e n t e d
t o
a l l o w
Fina
c c e s s
t o
same,
nd Fina never v a i l e d
himself of h a t o f f e r .
On
arch 11,
014,
Frank Fina
e r v e d
second
motion
o r
Miscellaneous
e l i e f
on
O f f i c e
of
t t o r n e y
General
demanding
c c e s s
t o
a l l
of
i s
own
m a i l s
and
asked
o
be
informed
r i o r t o
t h e O f f i c e
of
A t t o r n e y
General r esponding
o
any
Right
o
Know
equests
h a t n am e him.
Subsequently,Fina
had
r e s e n t e d motions o
S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge
Norman
Kr umenacker seeking
a
r o t e c t i v e Order
r e g a r d i n g
t h e very
same r n a i l s
a r o t e c t i v e
Order
which was
l t i m a t e l y d e n i e d .
5
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
142/216
Judge Krumenacker
u l e d t h a t
he had no
u t h o r i t y
over
h e O f f i c e
of
t t o r n e y
G e n e r a l ' s r e s p o n s e s t o
r e q u e s t s
under h e
Right o Know
Law
nd
Frank
i n a ' s
r e q u e s t
f o r
r e l i e f
r e l a t i n g
t h e r e t o was e n i e d .
8 5 . Denied. By a y of
u r t h e r answer, h e
r e s p o n s e s
h e r e i n
d i s p r o v e t h e
c o n c l u s i o n s of
t h e
S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r . C l e a r l y , t h i s
p o i n t s u p h e
gravamen
of h e OAG's
t r e n u o u s
C o n s t i t u t i o n a l o b j e c t i o n t o
t h e
p r o c e s s
under
which h i s
S p e c i a l P r o s e c u t o r and
h e S u p e r v i s i n g
Judge
r e
c o n d u c t i n g
t h e i r
i n q u i r y . Because
h e b a s i s
f o r
t h e
P r o t e c t i v e
Order has
o t
been
t e s t e d ,
t h e t r a n s c r i p t s
have o t been
i s c l o s e d , and h e
r i g h t t o
subpoena
and
r o s s - e x a m i n e t h e
c o m p l a i n i n g w i t n e s s e s
has been e n i e d ;
t h e r e
i s
no
b i l i t y f o r
t h e
OAG
o
c h a l l e n g e t h e
marked
i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s
i n
t h e
S p e c i a l P r o s e c u t o r ' s
s t a t e d b a s i s
f o r
t h e
P r o t e c t i o n Order
and h e
C o u r t ' s
abuse
of
i s c r e t i o n
i n
g r a n t i n g
t h e
O r d e r . The r o c e s s
a t p l a y i s devoid
of
u d i c i a l
o b j e c t i v i t y
and
c o u n t l e s s
f a c t u a l
a s s e r t i o n s
a r e
made
w i t h o u t
t h e i r v e r a c i t y
b e i n g
t e s t e d .
The
O A G ' s
due
p r o c e s s r i g h t s
i n t h i s i n q u i r y
have
been
i s r e g a r d e d
t h r o u g h o u t
t h e
pendency of
h e s e
p r o c e e d i n g s .
With h i s C o u r t ' s
u n d e r s t a n d i n g
of
h e
c o n t e x t
and g r e a t
p u b l i c
i n t e r e s t
r e g a r d i n g
t h e
p o r n o g r a p h i c
e m a i l s
of r .
i n a , and
n d e r s t a n d i n g
t h a t s i n c e March
of
014
Mr.
i n a
has
u n d e r t a k e n
a o n c e r t e d
e f f o r t
t o s h i e l d
t h o s e e m a i l s
from
u b l i c
view,
t a p p e a r s
t h a t t h r o u g h
t h e s e
b a s e l e s s , u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d P r o t e c t i v e
O r d e r s , he
h a s
a t
l a s t
managed o
accomplish
e f o r e
Judge
C a r p e n t e r what he
o u l d n o t
b e f o r e Judge
Krumenacker
i d e
t h e s e
g r a p h i c and
demeaning
o r n o g r a p h i c
images. The a c k
of ue
r o c e s s a f f o r d e d
t o OAG n
t h e
P r o t e c t i v e
Order
r o c e e d i n g s
p r e c l u d e d
t h e
S u p e r v i s i n g Judge and
h e p a r t i e s
from
e s t i n g
t h e
v e r a c i t y of
t h e
c l a i m s of r .
ina and
t h e r s , and from
x p l o r i n g
t h e t r u e
motives h e y
m a y have
had
o r
making such
l a i m s .
6
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
143/216
B.
The
Impai rment
of
Hav i ng
Limited
Witnesses
at the
Reconsideration Hearing
was e l f - I n f l i c t e d
86.
Denied. By
a y of
u r t h e r
answer,
h e
OAG
v e r s
t h a t t h e r e
was a
a c k
of
s u b s t a n t i a l ,
c r e d i b l e evidence o
s u p p o r t t h e g r a n t
of
h e
P r o t e c t i v e Order
on
A u gust 25,
014
and
h e
OAG
n c o r p o r a t e s
by e f e r e n c e
t h e
responses o t h e New atter
above.
87. I t i s
admitted h a t a e a r i n g on
h e
OAG's
otion o
Reconsider h e
e n t r y
of h e
P r o t e c t i v e Order was
c h e d u l e d .
88. Denied.
By
a y of
u r t h e r
answer, when h e O f f i c e of
ttorney General
asked
o r
subpoenas o r t h e complaining w i t n e s s e s
i n
p r e p a r a t i o n
f o r
t h e
subsequent hearing on
h e
m a t t e r ,
they
were e n i e d .
When h e
O f f i c e
of
ttorney Gener al
attempted
o subpoena a i t n e s s
t h a t i t
b e l i e v e d may
ave
e r t i n e n t i n f o l i n a t i o n r e g a r d i n g
t h e
b a s i s
f o r t h e o r d e r , t h e lower
Court
i n s t r u c t e d
t h e O f f i c e
of
t t o r n e y
General o
withdraw
h e subpoena and then suggested
h a t
t h e
i s s u a n c e
of subpoena
was
contemptuous and perhaps r i m i n a l . In i g h t of h e handicaps h a t
were
imposed on h e
O f f i c e
of ttorney Genera l, h e hear ine h a t
was
c t u a l l y h e l d was, t
b e s t , p e r f u n c t o r y and,
t
w o r s t , a
h a r a d e .
In a c t ,
i n
Judge
C a r p e n t e r ' s
Order of ctober 30,
2014,
enying
OAG's
otion o
Vacate
h e
P r o t e c t i v e Order, he m a d e a
i n d i n g
of
a c t
t h a t
OAG
roduced
only
one
1)
i t n e s s ,
but
a i l e d t o acknowledge
h a t he had denied OAG's
i g h t
t o c a l l a d d i t i o n a l w i t n e s s e s and was h u s t h e reason
h a t
only
one
1)
i t n e s s was produced.
89.
I t i s
admitted h a t
OAG a l l e d
only one
w i t n e s s
a t
t h e
proceeding and
h a t Judge
C a r p e n t e r denied OAG h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o
c a l l o t h e r c r i t i c a l w i t n e s s such as Mr.
Fina
and
M r .
Co
t a n z o .
7
7/26/2019 171 M M2014 Order and Attachments - 004673
144/216
90.
Denied. By
a y
of
u r t h e r
answer, h e
OAG v e r s t h a t i t s
c o u n s e l
d i d ,
i n
f a c t ,
a r t i c u l a t e
t o Judge
C a r p e n t e r t h e a d v e r s e
impact
u f f e r e d
by h e OAG s a e s u l t of h i s
broad
and
b a s e l e s s P r o t e c t i v e
O r d e r . Notes of
e s t i m o n y , 1 0 / 1
7/
14 p . 1 5 - 1 6 .
91. Deni ed. By
a y
of
u r t h e r answer, h e
OAG
s s e r t s t h a t
t h e
p a r a m e t e r s were drawn
so a r r o w l y by
Judge
C a r p e n t e r
t h a t t h e
hearine
was
a
mere
a a d e , i n
t h a t t h e OAG a s
b a r r e d
from
r e s e n t i n g
c r i t i c a l e v i d e n c e .
92. Deni ed. By a y
of
u r t h e r answer,
h e
OAG
l l e g e s
t h a t
t h e
l a c k
of
ue
r o c e s s and
r i g h t t o compulsory
r o c e s s
a t
t h e R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n
Hearing
e n d e r e d
i t
h o l l o w . Moreover,
h e
r e l i a n c e on Commonwe al th .
Hood, 7 2
A.2d 175 Pa. u p e r .
2005)
y h e
S p e c i a l
P r o s e c u t o r
s u p p o r t s t h e
c l a i m s
c o n s i s t e n t l y
made by h e
OAG.
here
must be a
i g h t
t o examine
complaining
w i t n e s s e s
and
o
l e a r n
t h e i r i d e n