171 m m2014 order and attachments - 004673

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.


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


3/216


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 ,


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


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


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


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


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


of

misconduct,

t h e


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


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


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


Judges

Order

t h a t

OAG

ave

no

involvement i n

t h e

S p e c i a l

Prosecutors


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


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


i n t i m i d a t i o n , o r


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 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


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 .


of


w i t n e s s


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


of


w i t n e s s


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


7/216


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


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


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


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


9/216


10/216


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


12/216


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


t o a d d r e s s

t h e


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 ,


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


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


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 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


14/216

58. Although t h e


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


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 ,


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


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


o r d e r because


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


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 ,


and


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


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


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


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



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


16/216


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


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


Grand

J u r y on

August

27, 2014, Sep tember

1 7 ,

2014,

and October

30, 2014.

16


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


19/216


20/216

EXHIBIT


21/216


22/216


23/216


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


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


25/216

EXHIBIT

B


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 .


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 ,


o r


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 .


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


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


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



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


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 .


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 .


30/216


31/216


32/216


33/216


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


T u d g e

1 h i r t y - F i f T h

S

a t e w i d e


G r a n d .

u i y


35/216


36/216


37/216


38/216


39/216


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


41/216


42/216


43/216


44/216


45/216


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.


135/216


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 @


137/216


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


and

averments which

form h e b a s i s of

h e


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

171 m m2014 order and attachments - 004673

Documents