In Re: The 35th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury Pet of: Office of AG

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE : No. 137 MM 2014
INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY :
:
:
PETITION OF: OFFICE OF ATTORNEY :
GENERAL :

ORDER

PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 26th day of August, 2015, upon the request of the supervising

judge for removal of the seal from all matters involving the 35th Statewide Investigating

Grand Jury and the investigation of Attorney General Kathleen Kane which have been

lodged in this Court, save for grand jury materials such as testimony, exhibits, and in

camera proceedings, and based on the supervising judge’s assurance that there are no

present grand jury secrecy concerns relative to such unsealing, it is hereby ORDERED

that the seal is lifted, in part, upon such terms.
 Received 09/19/2014 Supreme Court Middle District

Filed 09/19/2014 Supreme Court Middle District
137 MM 2014

UNSEALED PER ORDER OF
THE COURT DATED
AUGUST 26, 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE
INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY No. MM 2014

PETITION OF: FILED UNDER SEAL
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

APPLICATION OF THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
SPECIAL RELIEF PURSUANT TO 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 502, 726,Pa.R.A.P. 3309

TO THE HONORA.BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA:

AND NOW, comes the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General by Kathleen G. Kane,

Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and James P. Barker, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, who files this Application of the Office of Attorney General for Special Relief

pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 502, 726,PaA.A.P. 3309, and in support thereof avers as follows:

I. PARTIES

1. Petitioner is the Office of Attorney General of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania(OAG)by Kathleen Kane, Attorney General, and her appointed deputies.
 2. For the reasons recited below, OAG is unaware of the identity of any Respondent

but is serving the Special Prosecutor and the Supervising Judge as potentially interested parties,

as well as the Clerk of Court of Montgomery County. See Pa.R.A.P. 3309(a).

II. JURISDICTION

3. The Court has jurisdiction under Section 726 of the Judicial Code, which

provides:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Supreme Court may, on
its own motion or upon petition of any party, in.any matter pending before any
court or magisterial district judge of this Commonwealth involving an issue of
immediate public importance, assume plenary jurisdiction of such matter at any
stage thereof and enter a final order or otherwise cause right and justice to be
done.

42 Pa.C.S. § 726. Reasons for exercising this discretionary jurisdiction are discussed below.

III. BACKGROUND

4. n June 6, 2014, the Philadelphia Daily News published an article, a copy of tbe

on-line version of which is attached as Appendix A, describing a review of a prior Grand Jury

investigation by OAG.

5. The Honorable William R. Carpenter, Supervising Judge of the Thirty-Fifth

Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, appointed a .Special .Prosecutor to investigate, using the

resources of the Thirty-Fifth Statewide investigating Grand Jury.

6. OAG has cooperated with the Special Prosecutor's investigation.

7. On August 26, 2014„ with no prior notice to OAG, no allegations contained

therein, and no opportunity for OAG to Tespond to any allegations of misconduct, the

Supervising Judge issued an Order under the authority of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4954 (relating to

protective orders), identified hereinafter as the "Protective Order," a copy of which (along with a

related Sealing Order) is attached hereto as Appendix B.

2
 8. OAG moved for reconsideration of the Protective Order and argument on the

motion was conducted on September 16, 2014.

9. At the time of argument, OAG was informed for the first time thal an ex parte, in

camera "hearing had been conducted and that the Protective Order against the government

agency had issued as a rcsuh.

10. On September 17, 2014, the Supervising Judge issued an Order granting in part

the OAG's motion for reconsideration, granting a hearing on allegations of obstruction, witness

intimidation, and/or retaliation, but not establishing a date for said hearing. A copy of this Order

and related Sealing Order is attached hereto as Appendix C.

11. The Order of September 17, 2014, did not specify any person or conduct that is at

issue, reciting only, "The subject of the hearing is allegations of obstruction, witness

infinaidation, and/or retaliation." Order of Court dated September 17, 2014, at 1.

12. Also oil September 17, 2014, the Supervising Judge issued a second Order granting

in part the OAG's motion for reconsideration, amending Paragraphs 2 and 5 of the original

Protective Order to make the following persons subject to Paragraphs 2 and 5:

1. Any person who has been sworn to Cirand Jury secrecy;
2. Any person who has or had access to any Grand Jury information; .
3. Any person associated with the J. Whyatt Mondesire proceedings and
iryvestigation

Order of Court dated September 17, 2014 (second such Order), at 1. Presently, the Protective

Order affects, as in place, hundreds of employees of a government agency, including the

Attorney General.

13. For the reasons detailed below, OAG respectftdly requests that this Honorable

Court enter an Order vacating the Protective Order, at least to the extent that the OAG and/or any

person of the persons identified in the second Order of September 17, 2014. are prohibited from

3
acts that may be considered to constitute obstruction, intimidation, or retaliation against a

witness summoned by the Grand Jury, the identities of whom OAG is ordered not to have

knowledge.

IV. TERMS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER

14. As noted, on August 27 2014,. the Supervising Judge issued the Protective

Order pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. §4954, which permits lalny court with jurisdiction over any

crirninal matter" to issue protective orders "after a hearing and in its discretion, upon substantial

evidence."

15, The Protective Order directs OACi to refrain from involvement in or access to

the investigative efforts of the Special Prosecutor. Protective Order at 1 ¶ 2.

16. The Protective Order, as originally issued, also requires all OAG employees,

approximately 800 people, to refrain from engaging in or soliciting obstruction, intimidation or

retaliation against any witness summoned by the Grand Jury in the Special. Prosecutor's

investigation. Protective Order at 1 'Td 2.

17. • The Protective Order cautions that "any person," including OAG employees,

who engages in conduct constituting obstruction, intimidation, or retaliation may be prosecuted

under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4955 and any other applicable provision of the Crimes Code. Protective

Order at 2 ¶ 5.

18. The Order prohibits the Office from receiving transcripts oftestimony before the

Grand Jury and bars employees of the Office from access to transcripts, documents, or other

infomation related th the Special Prosecutor's investigation. Protective Order at 1 ¶ 3, 2 114.

4
 19. The Special Prosecutor was directed to serve the Protective Order on OAG,

Protective Order at 2 If 6, although the Protective Order did not provide for service on all of the

persons subject to its terms.

20. Finally the Order prohibits the disclosure of its contents to anyone outside OAG,

under penalty of contempt.

21. As amended by the Orders of Septernber 17, 2014, the Protective Order now

allows for the scheduling of a hearing on facts as to which there already have been findings,

pursuant to an ex parte hearing as to which OAG was not provided its due process rights of
notice and representation, and has "limited" the number of persons subject to the Protective

Order to any person subject to Grand Jury secrecy, any person who has or had access to Grand

jury information, and any person involved in a specified investigation. The people covered by

the Protective Order still would number in the hundreds.

V. ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ISSUANCE OF TIIE PROTECTIVE ORDER

22. The statutory provision on which the Supervising Judge relied reads ps follows:

Any court with jurisdiction over any criminal matter may, after a hearing and in
its discretion, upon substantial evidence, which rnay include hearsay or the declaration of
the prosecutor that a witness or victim has been intimidated or is reasonably likely th be
intimidated, issue protective orders, including, but not limited to, the following:

(1) An order that a defendant not violate any provision of this subchapter or
section 2709 (relating to harassment) or 2709.1 (relating to stalking).

(2) An order that a person other than the defendant, including, but not limited to,
a subpoenaed witless, not violate any provision ofthis subchapter.

(3) An order that any person described in paragraph (1) or (2) maintain a
prescribed geographic distance from any specified witness or victim.

(4) An order that any person described in paragraph (1) or (2) have no
communication whatsoever with any specified witness or victim, except through
an attorney under such reasonable restrictions as the court may irnpose.

5
18 Pa.C.S. § 4954.

23. By its terms, § 4954 grants to the court with jurisdiction the discretion to enter a

protective order and to decide the terms of a protective order, such that review of a protective

order would be for an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 70 A.3d 886, 897

n.9(Pa. Super. 2013).

24. "An'abuse of discretion will not be found based on a mere error ofjudgment, but

rather exists where the court has reached a conclusion which overrides or rnisapplies the law, or

where the judgrnent exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice,

bias or ill-will." Commonwealth v. Alicia, 92 A.3d 753, 760(Pa. 2014)(citation omitted).

25. To the extent that this case presents a question of law, such as the requirement of

a hearing, thc Court's standard of review is de novo and the scope of review is plenary. Id.

26. As noted, OAG was not provided with notice that there had .been an allegation of

misconduct and/or request for issuance of the Protective Order.

27. 'lb date, despite the filing of a motion for reconsideration, argument on that

motion on September 16, 2014,.and issuance of the Orders amending the Protective Order, OACI

is unaware of the precise nature of any allegation of misconduct giving rise to the issuance of the

Protective Order.

• 28. After repeated requests by OAG-, the Supervising Judge refused to even inform

OAG of the allegations that form the basis of the Protective Order or the person or persons who

allegedly committed the unknown acts.

29. As such, OAO has been left to speculate that the incident giving rise to the

Protective Order was an encotmter between two witnesses who testified before the Cirand Jury

and agents employed by DAG.

6
 30: More specifically, because OAG was responsible for issuing subpoenas to

witnesses summoned before the Grand Jury, certain members of the Criminal Law Division were

aware that two former employees of OAG',
- Frank G. Fina, Esquire, and F. Marc Costanzo,

Esquire, testified before the Grand Jury relating to this investigation On August 26, 2014.

31. The Grand Jury suite is located in the same building and on the same floor as the

Norristown offices of OAG, including agents, attorneys, and support staff employed within the

Bureau of Narcotics Investigations, the Organized Crime Section, the Criminal Prosecutions

Section, and other units of OAG.

32. OAG has been informed that on the day of their testimony Attorneys Fina and

Costanzo encountered Special Agent Michael A. Miletto on their way to the Grand Jury room.

33. Agent Miletto was the lead investigator in the investigation that is the subject of

the Special Prosecutor's inquiry and he previously testified before the Grand Jury.

34. The precise nature of the encounter between Agent Miletto and Attorneys • Fina

and Costanzo is unclear, but it appears to have given rise to the Protective Order because the

Protective Order was issued the next day; again, OAG can only surmise because the Supervising

Judge has refused to reveal the nature of the incident or who was involved.

35. Agent Miletto denies that he em.,
,aged in any act of obstruction, intimidation, or

retaliation on August 26, 2014, or that any act of his could reasonably be construed as such; to

the contrary, according to Agent Miletto, he and at least one other agent believed that Attorney

Fina was trying to intimidate Agent Miletto.

36. Agent Miletto indicates that he .has multiple witnesses to his actions and the

actions of Attorney Fina on August 26, 2014.

7
 37. The issuance of the Protective Order with no prior notice to Agent Miletto, OAG,

or the approximately 800 persons subject to the Protective Order was an abuse of discretion.

38. The Special Prosecutor has indicated that another OACT agent entered a room

occupied by the Special Prosecutor, Attorney Fina, and Attorney Costanzo, stared in a hostile

manner at Attorney Fina and Attorney Costanza and demanded to speak to the Special

Prosecutor.

39. According to the Special Prosecutor, the agent told him, in strong language, that

the proceeding was ridiculous and that Attomevs Fina and Costanzo could not be trusted.

40. As a matter of fundamental procedural due process, an individual rnay not be

deprived of a constitutionally protected interest without a hearing, and a hearing requires notice

and an opportunity to be heard; it follows that the opportunity to be heard must be at a

meaningful time and in a meaningful rnanner. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333

(1)76); Commonwealth v. Maldonado,838 A.2d 710, 714(Pa. 2003).

41. OAG and its employees, including the agents described above, have never been

heard in any way, much less in a rneaningful time and manner, with respect to issuance of the

Protective Order.

42. 'Mere is no reasonable basis for concluding that every employee of OAG is likely

to engage in intimidating activity or retaliatory conduct based on testimony before the Grand

Jury, especially since (a) the vast majority of OACi employees have no contact with the Cirand

Jury and would be completely unaware of the Special Prosecutor's investigation,(b) even among

those employees who have contact with the Grand Jury, most would be completely unaware of

the Special Prosecutor's investigation (as just one example, it is difficult to imagine that a

Medicaid Fraud_ investigator in Pittsburgh would have any knowledge of, or interest in, a "leak"

8
investigation involving the Norristown Grand jury), and (c) there have been no reports of any

contact with witnesses apart from the incidents involving the agents.

43. Contact between the witnesses and the agents cannot reasonably constitute

intimidation given that OAG agents work on the premises and especially since both Attorney

Fina and Attorney Costanzo are career prosecutors who have worked with, directed and

supervised agents on many occasions.

44. The Protective Order constitutes an abuse of discretion because OAG was never

given notice and no hearing, as required to satisfy basic due process, was conducted.

45. The Protective Order constitutes an abuse of discretion because the individual

employees subject to the Protective Order were never given notice and no hearing, as required to

satisfy basic due process, was conducted.

46. Assuming that the incidents involving Attorney Fina and the Agents are the basis

for the issuance of the Protective Order, the Protective Order constitutes an abuse of discretion

because the conduct of the agents cannot reasonably be construed as an act of intimidation,

obstruction, or retaliation.

47. Assuming that the incidents involving Attorney Fina and the agents are the basis

for the issuance of the Protective Order, the Protective Order constitutes an abuse of discrefion

because the conduct of the agents cannot reasonably be attributed to every employee of OAG.

48. Assuming that the incidents involving Attorney Fina and the agents are the basis

for the issuance of the Protective Order, the Protective Order constitutes an abuse of discretion

because there is no evidence that the agents supervisors were aware that they would engage in

intimidation, obstruction, or retaliation, or that they had engaged in such conduct in the past, and

so the conduct of the agents cannot reasonably be attributed to OAG as a whole.

9
 49. The Protective Order constitutes an abuse of discretion because the scope of the

Protective Order, in terms of both the persons subject to the Order and the conduct covered by

the Order, is far broader than necessary to protect any witness before the Grand Jury.

50. The Protective Order constitutes an abase of discretion because persons who

violate the Order are subjected to the jurisdietion of the Court for purposes of a prosecution

under 1 8 Pa.C.S. § 4955, which permits, inter alia, prosecution for other, substantive offenses

and thr contempt of court, and allows for a .warrantless arrest, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4955(a)(1), (a)(2),

(b), and there is no substantial evidence supporting the exercise of such jurisdiction.

AI. EXERCISE OF jUR1S1ICTION

51. OAG requests that the Court invoke its jurisdiction under 42 Pa.C.S. 726, which

allows the Court to assume plenary jurisdiction in any matter pending before any court involving

an issue of immediate public importance and enter a final order or otherwise cause right and

justice to be done.

52. The Protective Order is a matter of public importance because a governmental

agency with law enforcernent duties and other responsibilities important to the public is subject

to the terms of the Protective Order and limited in its ability to carry out its functions.

53. The Protective Order is a matter of public importance because OAG is

handicapped thereby in its role as a law enforcement agency or otherwise because all witnesses

are, according to the Protective Order, shielded from OAG any act undertaken by OAG

involving any witness in the Special Prosecutor's investigation may be construed as an act of

intirnidation, obstruction, or retaliation, such as:(a) reviewing investi Rations involving Attorney

Fina, Attomey Costanzo, or the former Deputy Attorney General to whom the underlying

investigation was assigned; (11) personnel matters involving any of those persons or other,

10
unknown witnesses;.(c) personnel actions involving any of the various OAG employees who

have testified.before the Grand Jury in the Special Pmsecutor's investigation; or (d) criminal or

civil investigations into any persons, knovvn or unlmovvn, under the Protective Order relating to

If 1, 3, 4, including for actions unrelated to the Special Prosecutor's investigation.
54. Because the Protective Order was effective immediately, the public importance of

the issues presented herein also is immediate.

55. Appeal in the ordinary manner is not feasible because most of the persons

affected by the Protective Order are not even avvare of its existence.

56. Appeal in the ordinary manner is not feasible in that the Protective Order affects

hundreds of individuals.

11
 VII. CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, through the Attorney

General and undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order

granting this Application for Special Relief and either vacating Paragraphs 2 and 5 of the

Protective Order or remanding the case to the Supervising Judge for a hearing consistent with 18

Pa.C.S. § 4954, or such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

KATHLEEN G. KANE
Attorney General

LAWRENCE M. CHERBA
Executive Deputy Attorney General
Director, Criminal Law Division

if)

By:
r_.
I
M ES P. BARKER -
1

Chief Deputy Attorney General
Attorney No. 67315
jbarkerAattorney eneral.gov

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Criminal Law Division
Appeals and Legal Services Section
16`h Floor-Strawberry Square
Harrisburg,PA 17120
(717) 705-0098
(Fax)(717) 783-5431

Date: September 19,2014

12
 VERIFICATION

• The facts recited in the foregoing Commonwealth's Answer to Petition for Review are

true arid correct to the best of my knowlehe and belief. This statement is made vvith lcnowleclge

that a false statement is punishable by law under 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904(h).

/.%

By:
IES P.
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Attorney No.67315

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Criminal Law Division
Appeals & Legal Services Section
16th Floor—Strawberry Square
Harrisburg,PA 17120
(717) 705-0098

Date: September 19,2014

13
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
State A.G. probed Philly NAACP leader Monclesire's finances 5 years ago Page 1 of6

Friday, September 19, 2014 Member Login: Sign I Register; f &

2 0 John Bolans' Forecast s
Philadelphia, PA phitty corn 1 Search Stjbl

l News I Sports I Entertainment Business l Opinion l Food l Lifestyle Health l More
BREAKING HENS VIDEO VOICES/SLOGS PHILADELPHIA NEW JERSEY POLITICS EDUCATION OPINION ontromoEs NATIONAVORLD WEATHER TRAFFIC
LOTTERY

State A.G. probed Philly NAACP
leader Mondesire's finances 5 years
ago

A d vertise Here

Entest MINOS Vid40

J. VViryaa tIondestra.. fanner.Pfa.si'doot of ifK. PhPodei3OhTa Chapter of/he NARL.P on kupast 10. 2Do9.(Da,..qd Maiafeffi
Staff Ftwfug.raphe4
Most Welyeti News Stories:
High school coach
CHRIS BRENNAN, Daily News Staff Writer brarrnac@,phiflynews.corn, resigns in alleged gay
215454-5973:c
;
-attack case
LAST U FDA TED Thursda y. June 5, 2014, S,45 PM

STATE ATTORNEY General Kathleen
Kane is reviewing a 2009 grand-jury 1 Schuylkill Banks
' boardwalk opens
investigation ofi.WhyattMondesìre, former head of the , soon
NAACP in Philadelphia, and one of his ernployees, according
to documents obtained by the Daffy IVews.

Mondesire's employee, Harriet Garrett, and her daughter Pair fight to save NE
Philly home after
pleaded guilty in 2010 to stealing nearly $220,000 in state son's arrest
grant money for a job-training program. Garrett was
sentenced to a minimum of six months in jail and ordered to
pay restitution. Her daughter got 18 months probation. Odd N.J. divorce case
has NFL finks
A 2009 memo written by then-Deputy Attorney General
William Davis Jr. says investigators "uncovered what
appeared to be questionable spending" of state money by
Mondesire. Schools in PCPC011os
closed for 3rd day

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140606 State A G probed Philly ... 9/19/2014
State A.G. probed Philly NAACP leader Monclesire's finances 5 years ago Page 2 of6

Kane, a Democrat, is now trying to deterrnine what happened
with the Mondesire investigation. Gov. Corbett, a Republican,
was the attorney general at the time.

MORE COVERAGE
Pokire probe shooting at upper Montco cornpleA
Christie chief of staff subpoenaed

Mandesire, 64, says he was never questioned and denies any
financial wrongdoing.

The 2009 Davis merno detailed for his bosses what had been
uncovered about Mondesire and Garrett, who worked at the
Philadelphia Sunday Sun, a weekly newspaper Mondesire
publishes.
Also OP Philly.com
A nonprofit called Next Generation Community Development
Corp., which is operated by Mondesire, held a state- Unemployment rises
in Del. Valley
government grant for a jobs-training program in 2004 and
2005, but handed it off to Garrett, who ran another nonprofit
called Creative Urban Education Systerns, or CUES,
according to the Davis memo. HEALTH:
Does ?hilly have a
Mondesire was listed as chairman of the CUES board, the doctor shortage?
memo noted, while Garrett served as the treasurer for Next
Generation's board.

Davis wrote his merno to then-Chief Deputy Attorney General
Frank Fina and then-Senior Deputy Attorney General E. Marc Giroux injured at
Travel Deals Flyers camp
Costanzo.

Corbett, as attorney general, named Fina in 2006 to head a
new public-corruption unit and Costanza to work on cases for ENTERTAINMENT:
the unit in the Philadelphia region. 'fina Fey talks 'This Is
Where I Leave You'
Fina and Costanza now work in a similar unit for District
$140 & up -- Downtown
D.C. Hotel Sale Ulm Fall, Attorney Seth VVilliams.
20% Off

See all travel deals e In the memo, Davis wrote: F000:
Volvér drops prices,
AWED Err
lens;fi
tvtgoo * Next Generation's bank-account records, obtained with a eliminates ticket sales
grand-jury subpoena, showed deposits of $1.3 million in
governrnent grants in a one-year period

Weekly Circulars Another $521,000 in the account came from political JOBS:
signs it's time to
campaigns, rent payments and the intermingling of rnoney oak far a new job
from the Sunday Sun, which is owned arid operated by
Mondesire, the memo said

Next Generation paid $2,273 to the Philadelphia Club, a Stag Connected
private and exclusive club in Center City. Oet the iatest Philfy.cao Daiiy Hea&rees news/atter
RADtOSHACIC
delivered ta Our erneR. Si9n tip now!
Hot Weekly Deals1
2 DAYS LEFT * Next Generation spent "tens of thousands," writing checks to
Enter email address to sign up
pay Mondesire's American Express bill for "clothes, food,
lodging gas and entertainment and a loan from Mellon Bank. Alceady a philly.sorn rnerneer? (:..f0 Yes (6. 50

There were also checks written to Mondesire and to "cash.''

* Next Generation wrote checks for $169,960 to Charles and
Claudia Tasco and their company, C&C Construction.
TAR.ET USA:
Get The aest OF
(Charles Tasco is the son of City Councilwoman Marian
Everything
EXPIRES TOMORROW

http://www.phi1ly.com/phi11y/news/20140606 State A_G probed Philly ... 9/19/2014
State A.G. probed Philly NAACP leader Mondesire's finances 5 years ago Page 3 of6

Tasco, a friend and political aily of Mondesire's for more than
See Mere Circulars
three decades.)

$6,431 in CUES money was given to Mondesire for what
Garrett called consulting. That type of expense was not
allowed, according to .the rules of the grant.

* In "various correspondence between Garrett and Mondesire
discovered by investigators, she questioned payments of
more than $70,000 he made to Claudia Tasco.

* CUES paid $1,099 for health insurance for Mondesire.

* Davis wanted to question Mondesire and possibly
subpoena him for sworn grand-jury testimony - about Garrett,
CUES and Next Generation.

Never questioned

Mondesire, a former Inquirer reporter who served as the top
aide to the late U.S. Rep. Bill Gray, said no one from the
A.G.'s Office ever questioned him.

'We didn't use any money for personal gain," Mondesire said.

He said that he has not seen the A.G. Office's documents and
twice declined an offer from the Daily News to review them.

Mondesire said C&C Constniction worked on four properties,
including the NAACP headquarters and his newspaper office,
where the Next Generation non-profit is also located

Me bought supplies with my American Express card for
construction," he said

"They never asked me a single question back in 2009. We
rehabbed the buildings. We spent money buying stuff for the
buildings, construction and paying off developers."

Garrett declined to comment about the investigations Her
daughter did not respond to requests for comment.

The May 2010 news release about Garrett's arrest featured
Corbett laying out the charges.

Corbett did not respond this week to two questions: Was he
briefed on the Mondesire investigation and did he play a role
in deciding what happened with that probe?

Mandesire was suspended by the NAACP's national
headquarters in April after he feuded publicly with board
members about the finances of the local chapter and Next
Generation.

Those board members - Sid Booker, Donald "Ducky Birts
and the Rev. Elisha Morris - also were suspended.

Booker and Morris, who say they are still Next Generation
board members, are now asking a Common Pleas judge to

ht-tp://www.philly.com/phi1ly/news/20140606_State A G probed Philly_... 9/19/2014
State A.G. probed Philly NAACP leader Mondesire's finances 5 years ago Page 4 of6

force Mondesire to show them the nonprofit's financial
records.

As a judge considers that request, Kane's staff is reviewing
what became of the 2009 Mondesire probe.

David Peifer, who heads the A.G.'s Bureau af Special
Investigations, on March 21 interviewed Michael Miletto, the
special agent who investigated Garrett and Mondesire.

The Daily News obtained a transcript of that taped interview.

Mi[etto told Peifer that he subpoenaed Next Generation's
bank account, the transcript shows.

"When I did that, I found that there was a whole bunch of
money that appeared to me to be donations to the NAACP,
not fMondesire], and they were going into Next Generation's
account and they were being used for fMondesire'si lifestyle -
much of it," Miletto told Peifer.

Miletto said he was taken off the case after Fina and
Costanza were told about the probe, according to the
transcript.

Miletta said "criminal activity was just ignored" after that. He
added that two accountants who had worked for Mondesire
had provided taped statements, with one asking for immunity
and the other asking for protection.

Fina and Costanza declined to comment about the Mondesire
investigation, citing the secrecy of grand-jury proceedings

Davis, now in private practice, also declined to comment,
citing the same restriction.

Miletto, who still works for the A.G.'s office, also decIined to
comment.

Peifer referred questions to Kane's communications staff.

J.J. Abbott, a spokesman for Kane, declined to comment.

The Kane-Fina feud

Fina and Costanzo have a complicated and controversial
relationship with Kane.

Kane criticized Corbett's tenure as attorney general when she
ran for office in 2012, specifically targeting the Penn State
child-abuse scandal that sent former assistant football coach
Jerry Sandusky to prison

Kane's staff is now conducting an extensive review of that
investigation.

Fina led the Sandusky probe.

http://www.philly.comIphilly/news/20140606 State A G probed 9/19/2014
State A.G. probed PhillY NAACP leader Mondesire's finances 5 years ago Page 5 of6

Kane, on Feb 5, issued a statement noting that her office's
Sandusky review had been undelway for one year, adding
that delays in the undertaking "will be described in more detail
when the report is made public."

A month later, the Inquirer reported that Kane declined to
pursue an investigation previously led by Fina and Costanza
starting in 2010, that used Philadelphia lobbyist Tyron Ali as a
confidential informant to tape conversations with four Philly
state representatives and a former Traffic Court judge. On the
tapes, the representatives and judge accept cash or gifts from
Ali

Kane has said Fina dropped 2,033 criminal counts against Ali,
who had been charged with stealing $430,000 from a state
program, 24 days before she was sworn into office.

She said that "extraordinarily lenient deal "crippled the
chance of this case succeeding in prosecution."

Fine, in a letter published by the Inquirer a week after the first
story ran, called on Kane to explain her decision.

The Inquirer also published a letter that day from Fina's boss,
Williams, critical of Kane.

Kane eventually turned over the Ali case file to Williams, who
is now examining whether charges can be brought against the
four representatives and the Traffic Court judge, who is
currently on trial in an unrelated federal corruption case.

On Twitter: @ChrisBrennanON

Blog: ph.ly/PhillyClout.com

CURES BRENNAN
Daily News Stqlf Writm• bre7maef,Sprtillynews.com,
215-S54;5973V

siwrej Tweet r Rditi Email Ru pririts & PEnniFsiorls

Si)are this story with friends who would like it.
We recommend which of your friends would enjoy this story.

MORE FROM 'T1-1E WEB MORE FROM PHILLY.COM
Cheerleaders From Na Week 2 You Have cieSean Jackson home burglary remains
To See (RantSportsj 'open investigation,' Philly cops say
5 Things You Should Never Say at Work Missing Children's Garden director found
;monster) without explanation
Dwyane Wade's Wives, Girlfriends Ail 3 hurt in Kensington warehouse blaze
Wrapped Up In 15 Pictures (RaniSports)
Living in truth means being on guard
3 Things You Should Never Do When
Negotiating Your Salary Orionster) Disruptive passenger pleads guilty to
interfering with flight crew
investing 101: What is a Hedge Fund?
(Mandoed Funds Association) 'LOVE' artist Indiana doesn't show at
celebration
Wal-Mart spokesman resigns over lie on
resume (Fotiune)

http://wrw.phi11y.com/phi11y/news/2O 1 40606___State_A__G probed_Philly ... 9/19/20 14
State A.G. probed Philly NAACP leader Mondesire's finances 5 years ago Page 6 of6

Pariners:
phMy!co lap
Philly DealYo

News l Sports l Entertainment I Business I The inquirer Digital Daily News Digital Edition Parade Magazine

Food l Lifestyle l Health Edition
Subscriber Services
Subscriber Services
Ciassifieds: Subscribe

Jobs 1 Cars] Real Estate I Rentals I Subscribe

Marketplace I Celebrations I Print Offers Newspapers in Education
Online I Weekly Circulars

Site Nei-Vices:

Advertise on Philiy.com 1 Rates a nd Specs I
Mobile Site l Apps

About Phillv.c.crn 1 Contact Us 1 Terrns of Use & Priva..y§.1aternerA.: 9parlytt2p14

Copyright 2o14 Interstate Genera] Media. LLC

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140606 State A G probed_philly ... 9/19/2014
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: : SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 176 M.D. MISC. DKT. 2012
THE THIRTY-FIVE STATEWIDE
: MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS
INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : M.D. 1424-2014

: NOTICE NO, 123

SEALING ORDER

AND NOW, this 27th day of August, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED, that the

attached Order of •August 27, 2014 be filed under seal with the Clerk of Courts of

Montgomery County uniil further Order of this Court.

BY THE COURT:

(,)
WILLIAM R. CARPEN ER, J.
Supervising Judge
 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: : SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANLk
: NO.176 M.D. MISC DKT.2012
THE THIRTY-FIVE STATEWIDE
: MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS
INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : M.D.1424-2014

: NOTICE NO. 123

ORDER

AND NOW,this 27th day of August, 2014,it is hereby ORDERED,pursuant to

18 Pa.C.S.§ 4954 (relating to protective orders), that:

1. The Office ofthe Attorney General, except upon specific authorization by

this Court or the Special Prosecutor, shall refrain from any involvement in,

or access to, the investigative efforts ofthe Special Prosecutor.

2. Employees ofthe Office ofthe Attorney General shall refrain from

engaging in, or soliciting, any act of obstruction, intimidation or retaliation

against any witness summoned by the Grand Jury in the Special

Prosecutor's investigation.

3. All transcripts of Grand Jury testimony shall be given only from the

stenographer or their employer directly to the Supervising Judge and the

Special Prosecutor, no copy shall be given to the Attorney General's

Office.
4. Employees ofthe Office ofthe Attorney General shall not have access to

transcripts of proceedings before the Grand Jury or Supervising Judge,

exhibits, or other information pertaining to the Special Prosecutor's

investigation. All information related to the work ofthe Special

Prosecutor shall be kept in the custody ofthe Special Prosecutor and

Supervising Judge.

5. Any person, including employees ofthe Office ofthe Attorney General,

who engage in any act of obstruction, intimidation or retaliation against a

witness summoned by the Grand Jury in the Special Prosecutor's

investigation may be prosecuted as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S.§ 4955 (relating

to violation of orders) and any other applicable provisions ofthe Crimes

Code ofPennsylvania.

6. The Special Prosecutor shall serve a copy of this Order upon the Office of

the Attorney General.

7. The contents of this Order are sealed, and shall not be disclosed (either

verbally or in writing) by the Office ofthe Attorney General to any

individual outside ofthe Office ofthe Attorney General under penalty of

contempt of court.
 BY THE COURT:

Cja2LE C potli-Vir
WILLIAM R. CARPENTE J.
Supervising Judge

Copies sent on August 27,2014
By First Class Mail to:
Kathleen G. Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General
Thomas E. Carluecio, Esquire
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 IN THE COURT oy: COMMON MEM
MONTGOMERY cQUNTY:f PENN$YLVANIA
IN RE: SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
. N.176 M.D. MISC. DKT.2012
THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE
MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS
INVESAIGATINQf; -ND JURY : M.D. 2644-2012
: NOTICE NO. 123

OIWER

AND NOW,this . . day of September, 2014, it Iglerebÿ ORDERED that the attached..
fikPd on Septernbe 2014, be and is hereby :s:ekded.

WILIJAM CARPENTER
SupefOsing hidge
ThirtSi-Fifth Statewide Investigating
Grtimd Atry
 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA

1N RE: : SUPREME COURTOF PENNSYLVA:NIA
NO. 176 WO,MISc DKr., 2012
THE THIRTY-RVE STATEWIDE
MONTGOMERY COUNTY Cat ON PLEAS
mEsTicAmc GRAND IVRY IVID: 1424-2014

: NOTICE NO. 123

ORDER

AND NOW, this 17th day of Septernher„2014, in the exercise of its discretion after
an in camera hearing and a Finding of substantial evidence, this Court issued a Prote0ive.
Order;
And upon consideration of the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the •Office of
Attorney General relating to the Order of Court issued August 27, 2014,y. apd Oter
Arg,ument,
IT IS ORDERED that a further :bearing related to the issuOne0 of qf ptOteckisiv o
pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.1§ 4954 shall be conducted on a date to be ;agreed won by the
Attorney General and the Special Prosecutor in th0 chamberg of the SuperVising Judge in
the Grand Jury suite. The $1Abject of the horing is anggation$ of ohoimetion, wilmess
intimidation, and/Of retaliation.
OV :HY,CO AT:

WILLIAM
Supervising Judge

Copies• sent on September 17, 2014
By First Class Alai' to:
Thomas E. Carluecio, Esquire
arnes 13arker, Esquire
 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: : SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 176 M.D. IVIISC. DKT.2012
THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE
: MONTCOMERY COUNTY COMMONPLE. S
INVESTIGATING GRAND IIJRY : M.D. 2644-2012

!OTICE

ORDER

AND NOW,this ta.y ofSepternber,2014, it is hereby ORDERED that the attached

filed on gepternbet 014,.be and is hereby sealed.

WILLIAM R. CARPENTER
Supervising Judge
Thirty-Fifth Statewide InVe.stigating
cirand Jury
 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: : SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 176 M.D. MISC DKT.2012
THE THIRTY-FIVE STATEWME
: MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS
INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : M.D. 1424-2014

; NOTICE NO. 123

ORDER

AND NOW,this 17th day.of Septernber, 2014, in the exercise of its discretion after
an in camera hearing and a finding of substantial evidence, this Court issued a Protective
Order;
And upon consideration of the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Office of
Attorney General relating to the Order of Court issued August 27, 2014,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED in part as to Paragraphs 2 and 5 of
said Order, and the following persons only shall be subject to Paragraphs 2 and 5 of said
Order:
1. Any person who has been sworn to Grand Jury secrecy.
2. Any person who has or had access to any Grand Jury information.
3. Any person associated with the J. Whyatt Mondesirc proceedings and
investigation.
Additionally, Paragraph 7 of said Order is modified to allow communication
reaarcling the Order with counsel for a person subject to the Order, for purposes of appeal,
and for any other, sirnilar purpose required by law,
 BY THE COUR'

WTI JAM,It. CARPEN't
.Supervising Jucige

Copies sent On Nowmber 7, 201.4
13y First Class Mail to:
Thothas E, Carlucci°, Esquire
lames 134ker, Esquire
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I arn this day serving one copy of the foregoing Application of the

Office of Attorney General thr Special Relief pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 502, 726, Pa.R.A.P.

3309 upon the persons and in the manner indicated below:

Via U.S. Firsl-Class Mail,
Postage pre-paid:

The Honorable Williarn R. Carpenter Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire
Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Plymouth Greene Office Carnpus
Montgomery County Courthouse 1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D3
P.O. Box 311 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462-2484
Norristown,PA 19404-0311 (484)674-2899
(610) 278-5902 (Special Prosecutor)
(Supervising Judge)

Ann Thomburg Weiss, Clerk of Courts
Montgomery County Clerk of Courts Office
P.O. Box 311
Norristown, PA 19404,-0311
(610)278-3346
(Clerk of Courts)

By:
JAMES P. BARKER
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Attorney No.67315

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Criminal Law Division
Appeals & Legal Services Section
16th Floor-Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717)705-0098

Date: September 19,2014

14
 Received 09/19/2014 Supreme Court Middle District

Filed 09/19/2014 Supreme Court Middle District
137 MM 2014

UNSEALED PER ORDER OF
THE COURT DATED
AUGUST 26, 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE :
INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : No. ___ MM 2014
:
PETITION OF: : FILED UNDER SEAL
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL :

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF UNDER SEAL

TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA:

AND NOW, comes the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General by Kathleen G. Kane,

Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and James P. Barker, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, who files this Motion for Leave to File Application for Relief under Seal, and

in support thereof avers as follows:

1. Concurrent with the filing of this Motion, Petitioner, Office of Attorney General

of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania(OAG)by Kathleen Kane, Attorney General, is filing an

Application for Special Relief pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 502, 726,Pa.R.A.P. 3309.

2. By its Application for Special Relief, OAG seeks to challenge the issuance of a

Protective Order by the Supervising Judge of the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand

Jury.
 3. Of necessity, the Application for Special Relief recites matters occurring before

the Grand Jury and/or matters subject to Sealing Orders signed by the Supervising Judge of the

Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury.

WHEREFORE, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, through the Attorney

General and undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order

granting this Motion for Leave to File Application for Relief under Seal and sealing this Motion,

the Application of the Office of Attorney General for Special Relief pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §§

502, 726, Pa.R.A.P. 3309, and any future documents filed in this matter pending further Order of

Court.

Respectfully submitted,

KATHLEEN G.KANE
Attorney General

LAWRENCE M.CHERBA
Executive Deputy Attorney General
Director, Criminal Law Division

By:
JAMES P. BARKER
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Attorney No.67315
jbarker@attorneygeneral.gov

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Criminal Law Division
Appeals and Legal Services Section
16th Floor-Strawberry Square
Harrisburg,PA 17120
(717)705-0098
(Fax)(717)783-5431

Date: September 19,2014

2
 VERIFICATION

The facts recited in the foregoing Commonwealth’s Answer to Petition for Review are

true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. This statement is made with knowledge

that a false statement is punishable by law under 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904(b).

By:
JAMES P. BARKER
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Attorney No.67315

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Criminal Law Division
Appeals & Legal Services Section
16th Floor—Strawberry Square
Harrisburg,PA 17120
(717)705-0098

Date: September 19,2014

3
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I am this day serving one copy of the foregoing Motion for Leave to

File Application for Relief under Seal upon the persons and in the manner indicated below:

Via U.S. First-Class Mail,
Postage pre-paid:

The Honorable William R. Carpenter Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire
Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Plymouth Greene Office Campus
Montgomery County Courthouse 1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D3
P.O. Box 311 Plymouth Meeting,PA 19462-2484
Norristown,PA 19404-0311 (484)674-2899
(610)278-5902 (Special Prosecutor)
(Supervising Judge)

Ann Thornburg Weiss, Clerk of Courts
Montgomery County Clerk of Courts Office
P.O. Box 311
Norristown,PA 19404-0311
(610)278-3346
(Clerk of Courts)

By:
JAMES P. BARKER
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Attorney No.67315

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Criminal Law Division
Appeals & Legal Services Section
16th Floor-Strawberry Square
Harrisburg,PA 17120
(717)705-0098

Date: September 19,2014

4
 UNSEALED PER ORDER
OF THE COURT DATED
AUGUST 26, 2015

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: : SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 137 M.D. MISC. DKT. 2014
THE THIRTY-FIVE STATEWIDE
: MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS
INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : M.D. 1424-2014

SEALING ORDER

AND NOW, this 24th day of Septernber, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED, that the

attached Answers and Orders of September 24, 2014 be filed under seal with the Supreme

Court until further Order of that Court.

BY THE COURT:

WILLIAM R. CARPE TER, J.
Supervising Judge
 • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: : SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 137 M.D. MISC. DKT. 2014
THE THIRTY-FIVE STATEWIDE
: MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS
INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : M.D. 1424-2014

SEALING ORDER

AND NOW, this 24th day of September, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED, that the

attached Answers and Orders of Septernber 24, 2014 be filed under seal with the Clerk of

Courts of Montgomery County until further Order of this Court.

BY THE COURT:

t,)
WILLIAM R. CAR ENTER, J.
Supervising Judge
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE : NO. 137 MM 2014
INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY
FILED UNDER SEAL
V.

PETITION OF:
THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL :

ANSWER TO THE APPLICATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR SPECIAL RELIEF PURSUANT TO §§502, 726, Pa.R.A.P. 3309

TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA:

AND NOW,comes Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire, Special Prosecutor for
the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, who files this Answer to the
Application of the Office of Attorney General for Special Relief Pursuant to
§§502, 726, Pa.R.A.P. 3309, and in support thereof answers as follows:
I. PARTIES
1. Admitted.
2. Denied, to the extent that this Special Prosecutor has no knowledge
as to what the Office of the Attorney General of the Conunonwealth of
Pennsylvania(OAG)knows and doesn't know about the identity of any
Respondent.
IL. JURISDICTION
3. Admitted, in part, that Applicant has correctly cited Section 726 of
the Judicial Code. Denied, in part, that the Court has jurisdiction of this matter
pursuant to Section 726 of the Judicial Code.
III. BACKGROUND
4. Denied, to the extent that Appendix A appears to be a writing that
speaks for itself.
5. Admitted.
 6. Denied, This motion in and of itself exhibits a lack of cooperation,
along with the fact that the Special Prosecutor is still awaiting the Right-To-
Know Documents requested last week.
7. Admitted in part, that August'26, 2014, the Judge issued a
Protective Order. All other allegations are specifically denied.
8. Admitted.
9. Denied. However, attached as Exhibit 2 under separate seal, are the
notes of testimony from the hearing that was used to establish the Protective
Order. Please note that the Attorney General has not been provided a copy of
the hearing.
10 Admitted.
11. Admitted in part, and denied in part. The Order dated September
17, 2014 is an Order which the contents thereof speak for itself.
12. Admitted in part, and Denied, in part. The Order dated September
17;2014 is an Order which speaks for itself. Any interpretation of the
September 17, 2014 Order by the Applicant is specifically denied.
1.3. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt .
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a
stay recently lifted by judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1.
IV. TERMS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
14. Admitted. The September 17, 2014,()rder, was issued pursuant to
18 Pa.C.S.A. §4954.
15. Denied. The Order dated September 17, 2014, is an Order that
speaks for itself. Any interpretation of the September 17, 2014. Order, by the
Applicant is specifically denied.
16. Denied. The Order dated September 17, 2014, is an Order, which
speaks for itself. Any interpretation of the September 17, 2014 Order, by the
Applicant is specifically denied.

2
 17. Denied. The Order dated September 17, 2014, is an Order, which
speaks for itself. Any interpretation of the September 17, 2014 Order, by the
Applicant is specifically denied.
18. Denied. The Order dated September 17, 2014, is an. Order, which
speaks for itself. Any interpretation of the September 17, 2014 Order, by the
Applicant is specifically denied.
19. Denied. The Order dated September 17, 2014, is an Order, which
speaks for itself. Any interpretation of the September 17, 2014 Order, by the
Applicant is specifically denied.
20. Denied. The Order dated September 17, 2014, is an Order, which
speaks for itself. Any interpretation of the September 17, 2014 Order, by the
Applicant is specifically denied.
21. Denied. The September 17, 2014 Order, granting in part the Motion
for Reconsideration is an Order, which speaks for itself. Any interpretation of
that order by the Applicant is specifically denied.
V. ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ISSUANCE OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
22. Admitted, in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that this Judge
relied on 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4954 in issuing the September 17, 2014, Protective
Order. The original text of that statutory section speaks for itself. Denied, to
the extent that this Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by
the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for
her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have
testified before the Grand Jury. These ernails were previously subject to a stay
recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1.
23. AdrMtted, in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that
Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 70 A.3d. 886, 897 n. 9(Pa.Super. 2013), sets forth
the cited language. Denied, that an abuse of discretion standard is appropriate
here. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the
Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her
to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have

3
testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a stay
recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1.
24. Admitted, in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that
Commonwealth v. Alicia, 92 A.3d 753, 760(Pa. 2014), sets forth the cited
language. Denied, that an abuse of discretion standard is appropriate here. This
Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt by the Attorney General
to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way for her to release certain
emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who have testified before the
Grand Jury. These ernails were previously subject to a stay recently lifted by
Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1.
25. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a
stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit I.
26. Denied.
27. Denied. The Special Prosecutor is unaware of what the OAG is
aware of or has knowledge of.
28. Denied.
29. Denied, as to the contents of the OAG's speculation.
30. Denied. This allegation is speculation.
31. Denied, in that the Special Prosecutor does not have sufficient
knowledge to answer this averment.
32. Denied, as a mischaractertion of the facts and this allegation is
speculation.
33. Denied, as a rnischaractertion of the facts and this allegation is
speculation.
34. Denied. This allegation is speculation.
35. Denied. This allegation is speculation.
36. Denied. This allegation is speculation.

4
 37. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
have testified before the Grand jury. These emails were previously suhject to a
stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See. Exhibit 1.
38. • Denied, as a mischarterization of the facts, and this allegation is
speculation.
39. Denied, as a mischaracterization of the facts, and this allegation is
speculation.
40. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a
stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1. Furthermore, if this
interpretation were to be permitted then an organized crime target would be
allowed in this context to have a hearing and confront witnesses who were
being protected for Gand jury purposes.
41. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a
stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1.
42. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a
stay recently lifted by judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1.
43. Denied. This Application for Special Rehef is a transparent attempt
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
for her to release certain ernails as retaliation against certain witnesses who

5
have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a
stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1.
44. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a
stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit I- .
45. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent atternpt
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a
stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1.
46. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a
stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1.
47. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a
stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibif 1.
48. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a
stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1.
49. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attenlpt
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who

6
have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a
stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1.
SO. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
have testified before the Grand jury. These emails were previously subject to a
stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1.
VL EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION
51. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a
stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1.
52. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a
stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1.
53. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a
stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit Ï.
54. Denied, This Applicadon for Special Relief is a transparent attempt
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a
stay recently lifted by Judge Krurnenacker. See, Exhibit 1.
55. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way

7
for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a
stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1.
56. Denied. This Application for Special Relief is a transparent attempt
by the Attorney General to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clear the way
for her to release certain emails as retaliation against certain witnesses who
have testified before the Grand Jury. These emails were previously subject to a
stay recently lifted by Judge Krumenacker. See, Exhibit 1.

NEW MATTER
1 The Protective Order is not a final Order. It is an interlocutory Order,
which should not be the subject of an appeaL No one has been found
in contempt of court for violating the Protective Order.
2. The Protective Order has served its purpose to this point. There has
not been any additional problems as outlined in Exhibit 2 and in New
Matter number 3.
3. Frank Fina and Mark Costanzo testified before the Grand jury on
August 26, 2()14. As they walked in the door they were confronted by
several OAG agents who apparently knew they were testifying that
day. The agents then walked with them to the elevator muttering
comments to them. The agents then rode the elevator with Costanzo
and Fina to the Grand Jury Room standing nose to nose with them.
They were making cornments concerning Fina and Costanzo the entire
time in the elevator until someone said to knock it off. They then
entered the Grand Jury Room to wait to be called for testimony. While
waiting in the Grand Jury Room an agent came in to the room and
stared at Constanzo and asked to talk to the Special Prosecutor
whereby he gave several statements disparaging Costanzo.

8
 All of this information was conveyed to the Court by the Special
Prosecutor prior to the issuing of the Protective Order.
4. Vacating the Protective Order may impede the unfinished work of the
Special Prosecutor and Grand Jury.

CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Special Prosecutor, Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire,
respectfully requeSts that this Honorable Court enter an Order denying the
Application for Special Relief.

Respec:tfully submitted,

Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire
Special Prosecutor for the Thirty-
Fifth Statewide Grand Jury

9
 VERIFICATION

The facts recited in the foregoing Commonwealth's Answer to Petition for
Review are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. This
statement is made with knowledge that a false statement is punishable by law
under 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904(b).

BY:

THOMAS E. CARLUCCIO, ESQUIRE
Attorney No. 81858

Law Office of Thomas E Carluccio
Plymouth Greene Office Campus
1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D3
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462-2484
484 674-2899
(Special Prosecutor)

DATE:September 24, 2014

10
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that 1 am thiš day serving one copy of the foregoing Application
of the Office of Attorney General for Special Relief pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 502, 726,
Pa.R.A.P. 3309 except for exhibit 2 filed under separate seal upon persons and in the
manner indicated below:
Via U.S. First-Class Mail,
Postage pre-paid:
The Honorable William R. Carpenter James P. Barker
Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Office of Attorney General
M6ntgornery County Courthouse Criminal Law DiVision
P.O. Box 311 Appeals & Legal Services
Norristown, PA 19404-0311 16'h Floor-Strawberry Square
610-278-5902 Harrisburg, PA 17120
(Supeivising Judge) 717-705-0098
(Chief Deputy Attorney General)
Ann Thornburg Weiss, Clerk of Court
Montgomery County Clerk of Courts Office
P.O. Box 311
Norristown, PA 19404-0311
610-278-3346
(Clerk of Courts)
BY:

THOMAS E. CARLUCCIO, ESQUIRE
Attorney No. 81858
Law Office of Thomas E. Carluccio
Plymouth Greene Office Campus
1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D3
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462-2484
484 674-2899
(Special Prosecutor)
DATE: September 24,2014

11
 Kane to decide whether to release state workers racy e-mails Page 1 of 4

(EXHIBIT 1)
Monthly. SeptafTdror 22, 20/4 Limnhor Lavin: Sign in RegiSter f E g

66° John Solaris' Forocasi
Philadelphia, PA phitlyfcorn Sukuelt
i5
DAM'liEWS

tht News 1 Spurts Entertainment 1 Business 1 Opinion 1 Food 1 Lifestyle 1 Health 1 More
BREAKING NEWS VIVED VOICESIBLOGS PHILACIELP1NA NEW JERSEY POLITICS EDUCATION OPINION OBITUARIES NATIONAVORLO WEATHER TRAFFIC
LOTTERY

SAVE 40%
ON ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS!
rt):::.1 CLIO: Fi
vi c:ein ..-re,Er. you hi(t/ %Fitt,

Angiel list.
prr,1
, 5 r.ii. AUTUNiriosa

Kane to decide whether to release
state workers'racy e-rnails The Season BegirfSi
DL.IJ Reaeit Ern,3ii 31 COMMENTS September 2-2Et •
-
_

. .
Featuring Lang Lang pedong Mozart's
Rarro ooncerto,No. 17
LEARN/SORE 0
'www.phllorch.org

Lutes/ Nett% Video

Pautlayiyadia ASurney Goaurdi Kat/Veen X4,10. l micr-1.4o.[3R VAA/T Slier Piwtooropher. )

Angola Couloombist Meeker Vat Writer
Mr.15t Vie,ved News Stories:
LAST UPDA TED: Saturday, Scplembey 20, 21114,1.00 AM
EDSTFDI Friday. SaMorr,Unt 10, 2014, 10:4S AN Troopers: we're
closing in on suspect
HARRISBURG - Pennsylvania Attorney
nqui7r
General Kathleen G. Kane must decide
whether to make public e-mails of current and former state
employees - some sent over state-owned computers and 4 kids killed in Pa.
crash not restrained
accounts - that purportedly contain pornographic images,
jokes, cartoons, and other private messages.

A state judge lifted a stay Friday that prevented release of the
material that Kane discovered during her review of her Sexual assault charge
for Phitly lobbyist
predecessors' handling of the Jerry Sandusky child sexual-
abuse case.

Renee Martin, a spokeswoman for Kane, said Friday that the
Ilaverford project
office was reviewing the order by Cambria County Court sets off Facebook
Judge Norman A. Krumenacker 111 and would decide soon. fight

http://www.philly.corn/phi 1 ly/news/20140920_JudgeJitts_stay on_emailsjn_Sanclusky__c... 9/22/2014
 Kane to decide whether to release state workers racy e-mails Page 2 of 4

Several news organizations, including The Inquirer, have Pace lift Poconos
asked to see the e-mails under the state's Right-to-Know taw. limits; limit for killer
goes on
Former Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank G. Fine who
led the Sandusky investigation, had argued to Krumenacker
that because the e-mails were discovered during Kanes
interne! review of the investigation, which involved grand jury
material, they should not be made public.

Kane's office countered that the information sought did not
relate to grand jury matters and was not covered by strict
grand jury secrecy rules.

it was not immediately clear why Fina was seeking a . .

protective order. Fine, who now works for Philadelphia District ...I'M, nil
ittild.on IS
ETC Dui rwernkrb.1116%.*.Capi-2.•
0,-.4..nax,tith. '
4...* Mb.. re.wealm treuuera,ffinfruam.rzee. IP.
Attorney Seth Williams, could not be reached for comment KVii rre. nediol.a

Friday. Also cm Phiiiy.croor
BUSINESS:
Kane and Fina have for months been locked in an You're carrying too
increasingly bitter battle, one that most recently has nuich personal data
on your credit card
culminated in a special prosecutors being appointed to
investigate whether Kane's office leaked secret grand jury
material in a separate case that Fine handled. HEALTH:
Online workouts: The
The special prosecutor has issued several subpoenas to personal trainer you
Kane's office and others to explore how secret records never had
became public this year about a 2049 investigation by Fine
involving Philadelphia NAACP leader J. VVhyatt Niondesire.
rrovel Deals SPORTS:

The e-mails have become an issue in the leak inquiry, with Williams: Birds ate
ove1wOrked
some Kane critics arguing that her office is using the threat of
their release as a way to silence criticism, sources have told
The lnquirer.
ENTERTAINMENT:
A person who violates grand jury secrecy rules may be found One way to avoid
guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to up to six months hacked nude shots?
5140 & p Downtown Keep your clothes on
Hotel Sale Ihru Fa% in prison.
20% 0II
See all travel deare Given the tangled nature of the leak investigation, Kane might
CRAIG LABAN
LISTED DY TRAV9X0D be hard-pressed to release the e-mails.
- 731,r0e, !MAC,.
Junto: One of the
suburbs' top new
Cornplicating matters are Krumenacker's own words in lifting restaurants .
the stay Friday TIT

The judge wrote that the e-mails being requested do not
JOES:
relate to grand jury secrecy and that he therefore had no 7 essential items for
jurisdiction over whether they can be released. your job search
'toolkit'
But he made it clear that he believes case law makes it very
difficult for Kane lo make the information public. He cited
court decisions that the Right-to-Know law only covers official SIrry Connected

records and that e-mails of a personal nature do not fafl under Gel Oro ?Mos!Philly.com Doi& iicadfinas newstfeor
6vcrd la yew,' Sigo now,
that definition,
0011e..111' ,4•:frosf; r rjj cja

"Here,the e-mails sought are described variously as being
Already a philty.corn rnainaar? • 0
pornographic or sexually explicit in nature, and as such do not
appear to document a transaction or activity' of the Attorney
General's Office, Krumenacker wrote.

The inquirer has reported that the e-mails circulated among
scores of officials, from homicide investigators in the Attorney

http://www.philly.corn/philly/news/20]40920 Judgejifts_stay_on_ernails_in_Sanclusky_c... 9/22/2014
Kane to decide whether to release state workers racy e-rnails Page 3 of4

Generars Office to state prosecutors and other officials, as
AN INQUIRER ORIGINAL Mielltiquircr
well as top Pennsylvania jurists.

The e-mails were sent between 2009 and 2011, when the
office was handling some of its biggest investigations,
including that of Sandusky and several public corruption
investigations involving the misuse of state resources for
political gain,

Gov. Corbett, a Republican, was attorney general until early
2011. He was succeeded by Linda Kelly, also a Republican.

There is no indication that Corbett received or was aware of
the e-mail exchanges, according to people familiar with the
matter.

acouloumbis@phillynews.com

717-787-5934

@Angelaslnk

Angelo Coul bis
Inquirer Stuff Writer

Sha.
.
rD, Tweet Recklit Email 31 COMMENTS Roprints S Permissions

Share this stfiry wi at friends who would like it.
We recommend which of your friends would enjoy this story.

MORE FROM THE WEB MORE FROM PHILLY.COM

13 Athletes Who Are Just As Guilty As Shuttle buses on Media-Elwyn SEPTA line
Ray Rice (StvieBiaze) for next 10 weekends
10 NFL Teams Who Should Have Their Andy Reld's son settles In road-rage suit
Names Forcibly Changed (RantSportsl
"Privilege" to be white? Not quite
CNN Money: How Young Millionaires
Bucks DA: Teacher had sex with student,
Invest (CAr(rt4oncy)
14
20 Legal Activities You Probably Thought
Camden County College union to
Were Illegal (Ran(bfeslylel
freeholders: Rehire laid-off workers
15 Dirty Jokes We TOTALLY Missed In
Emotions mount on final day of Scottish
Beloved Films From Our Youth fReltnery29)
campaign
Ice Dancer Anna SemenovIch Is Curvy and
Not Afraid to Show It(Rantspoils)

31 Comments

ma Guest •
Kane looks like she visited Michael Jackson's surgeon too.

Guest •
tere& Our downtown Philadelphia professional workplace put a cap on those sorts
of shenanigans some 15 years-ago and fired rnany good employees over
personal correspondence, non-work related e-mails and those messages
that nontainnd ni Ipsiinna hip rewttont

http://www.philly.corn/philly/news/20140920Judge_lifts_stay_on_emails_in_Sandusky_c... 9/22/2014
Kane to decide whether to release state workers racy e-mails Page 4 of4

cornments powered by Disous
Commenting policy l Comments FAO

Par/tiers:
philtyfcom Theilnquirtr BAIT NEWS
Philly DealTo

News I Sports I Entertainment I Business I The Inquirer Digital Daily News Digital Edition Parade Magazine

Food I Lifestyle I Health Edition Subscriber Services
Subscriber Services Subscribe
Classifieds:
Subscribe
Jobs I Cars I Real Estate I Rentals I
Marketplace I Celebrations l Print Offers Newspapers in Education
Online I Weelðy Circulars

Site Services;
Advertise on Philly.com I Rates and Specs
Mobile Site l Apps

About Philly.com l Contact Us l Terms of Use & Priyacv Statement cOPYright 2014
OD Copyright 2014 interstate General Media, LLG

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140920Judge_lifts_stay_on_emails_in_Sandusky_c... 9/22/2014
 UNSEALED PER ORDER OF
THE COURT DATED
AUGUST 26, 2015

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: : SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 137 M.D. MISC. DKT.2014
THE THIRTY-FIVE STATEWIDE
: MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS
INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : M.D. 1424-2014

SEALING ORDER

AND NOW, this 24th day of September, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED, that the

attached Answers and Orders of September 24, 2014 be filed under seal with the Supreme

Court until further Order of this Court.

BY THE COURT:

Supervising Judge
 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: : SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 137 M.D. MISC. DKT. 2014
THE THIRTY-FIVE STATEWIDE
: MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS
INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : M.D. 1424-2014

SEALING ORDER

AND NOW, this 24th day of September, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED, that the

attached Answers and Orders of September 24, 2014 be filed under seal with the Clerk of

Courts of Montgomery County until further Order of this Court.

BY THE COURT:

Supervising Judge
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE : NO. 137 MM 2014
INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY
FILED UNDER SEAL
V.

PETITION OF:
THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL :

ANSWER TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL
RELIEF UNDER SEAL, FILED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL

TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA:

AND NOW,comes the Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire, Special Prosecutor
for the Thirty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, who files this Answer to
the Motion for Leave to File Application for Relief Under Seal filed by the
Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, and in support thereof answers as
follows:

I. Admitted.
2. Admitted in part, as to the OAG seeking to challenge the Protective
Order, but it is specifically denied that the OAG's Motion for Leave to File
Application for Special Relief Under Seal should be granted.
3. Denied. The Protective Order implicates matters occurring outside of the
Grand Jury. The Protective Order represents an attempt to prevent retaliation,
obstruction, or intimidation against Grand Jury witnesses.
 WHEREFORE, Special Prosecutor, Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire,
respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order denying the
Motion for Leave to File Application for Relief'Under Seal.

Respectfully:submitted,

By: -
Thomas E. Carluccio, Esquire
Special Prosecutor for the Thirty-
Fifth Statewide Grand Jury

2
 VERIFICATION

The facts recited in the foregoing-Commonwealth's Answer to Petition for
Review are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. This
statement is made with knowledge that a false statement is punishable by law
under 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904(b).

BY:

THOMAS E. CARLUCCI°, ESQUIRE
Attorney No. 81858

Law Office of Thomas E. Carluccio
Plymouth Greene Office Campus
1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D3
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462-2484
484 674-2899
(Special Prosecutor)

DATE: September 24, 2014

3
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I am this day serving one copy of the foregoing Application
of the Office of Attorney General for Special Relief pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §§' 502, 726,
Pa.R.A.P. 3309 except for exhibit 2 filed under separate seal upon persons and in the
manner indicated below:
Via U.S. First-Class Mail,
Postage pre-paid:
The Honorable William R. Carpenter James P. Barker
Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Office elf Attorney General
Montgoinery County Courthouse Criminal Law Division
P.O. Box 311 Appeals &- Legal Services
Norristown, PA 19404-0311 16th Floor-Strawberry Square
610-278-5902 HarrisbUrg, PA 17120
(Supervising Judge) 717-705-0098
(Chief Deputy Attorney General)
Ann Thornburg Weiss, Clerk of Court
Montgomery County Clerk of Courts Office
P.O. Box 311
Norristown, PA 19404-0311
610-278-3346
(Clerk of Courts)
BY:

THOMAS E. CARLUCCIO, ESQUIRE
Attorney No. 81858
Law Office of Thomas E. Carluccio
Plymouth Greene Office Campus
1000 Germantown Pike, Suite D3
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462-2484
484 674-2899
(Special Prosecutor)

DATE:September 24, 2014

4
 UNSEALED PER ORDER OF
THE COURT DATED
AUGUST 26, 2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: THE THIRTY-FIFTH STATEWIDE : No. 137 MM 2014
INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY :
:
:
PETITION OF: OFFICE OF ATTORNEY :
GENERAL :

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of October, 2014, the Application for Special Relief filed

by the Office of the Attorney General seeking, inter alia, a remand for a hearing is

DIMISSED as moot. The Supervising Judge of the Thirty-Fifth Grand Jury has

previously granted a hearing consistent with 18 Pa.C.S. § 4954 by order dated

September 17, 2014.

The Motion for Leave to File the Application for Special Relief Under Seal is

GRANTED.

Justice Stevens would Grant the Application for Special Relief and direct Judge

Carpenter to set a hearing date forthwith.

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this

matter.