1. Healthcare

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HARRISBURG DIVISION
:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
BELLEFONTE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
:
CENTRE COUNTY BOARD OF
:
COMMISSIONERS, STEVEN G. DERSHEM, C. :
CHRIS EXARCHOS, AND MICHAEL PIPE, in
:
their official capacities, LOUIS T. GLANTZ, in
:
his capacity as Centre County Solicitor, COURT
:
OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CENTRE COUNTY, :
and COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR
:
CLINTON COUNTY
:
:
Respondents.
:
:
STACY PARKS MILLER,
QUO WARRANTO ACTION
ORDER
AND NOW, this _________ day of ____________, 2015, upon consideration of the
emergency petition for injunctive and quo warranto relief of Petitioner, Stacy Parks Miller, it is
hereby ORDERED and DECREED that the petition is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
1.
Pending further order of this Court, Respondents, their officers, employees,
attorneys, elected officials, judges, prosecutors, and agents are enjoined from undertaking any
investigation of allegations of forgery or theft of public services by Petitioner, and from making
any arrests or filing any charges against Petitioner regarding such offenses, as such matters
involving a District Attorney are within the sole jurisdiction of the Office of the Attorney
General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
2.
Respondents shall not possess, nor seek to possess, the original Order of Pamela
Reust dated September 9, 2013 in the case of Commonwealth v. Albro, No. 496-2013 on the
docket of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County.
3.
Respondents shall immediately return to Petitioner all items seized from
Petitioner in connection with the self-styled search warrant executed on Saturday, January 24,
2015, and all copies of such materials.
4.
Should Respondents wish to proceed with any investigation or appointment of a
special prosecutor, within 10 days from the date of this Order, Respondents shall file with this
Court, and serve on Petitioner’s counsel, a response to the petition and a memorandum of law
supporting Respondents’ claim that they, or any combination of them, have jurisdiction and
authority to investigate and prosecute the matter.
This Order shall remain in effect until further Order of Court.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
ROGERS CASTOR
By: Bruce L. Castor, Jr., Esq.
Attorney I.D. No. 46370
26 East Athens Avenue
Ardmore, PA. 19003
Phone: 610.285.7338
Facsimile: 877.649.7966
Attorneys for Petitioner
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
By: Robert S. Tintner, Esq., Patrick J. Murphy, Esq. and Eric E. Reed, Esq.
Attorney I.D. Nos. 73865, 93709, and 204692
2000 Market Street, 20th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215.299.2000
Facsimile: 215.299.2150
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HARRISBURG DIVISION
STACY PARKS MILLER,
Petitioner,
v.
BELLEFONTE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
CENTRE COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, STEVEN G. DERSHEM, C.
CHRIS EXARCHOS, AND MICHAEL PIPE, in
their official capacities, LOUIS GLANTZ, in his
capacity as Centre County Solicitor, COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS FOR CENTRE COUNTY,
and COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR
CLINTON COUNTY
Respondents.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
QUO WARRANTO ACTION
EMERGENCY PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO AND
SPECIAL AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Petitioner, Stacy Parks Miller, the twice-elected District Attorney for Centre County,
Pennsylvania, petitions the Court for quo warranto and injunctive relief under Pa.R.C.P. 1531.
Specifically, Petitioner seeks to quash an illegal, personally retaliatory, and politically driven
investigation into Petitioner undertaken by the Centre County Board of Commissioners and the
Bellefonte Police Department, despite Petitioner’s early and appropriate referral of the matter to
the Office of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (“OAG”) and the
acceptance by the OAG of the referral. Respondents’ actions are a bald attack on the
independence of the District Attorney.
Petitioner approaches the Court on an exigent basis because Respondents have rebuffed
Petitioner’s multiple requests that they stand down and allow the OAG to conduct a proper
inquiry. Respondents likewise defiantly ignored similar requests from the OAG. Respondents’
actions to date demonstrate their rushed effort and intent to arrest and falsely charge Petitioner,
by any means necessary, unless this Honorable Court enjoins them from doing so.
In support of her requested relief, Petitioner states the following:
1.
Petitioner is the twice-elected District Attorney for Centre County.
2.
Respondents Dershem, Exarchos, and Pipe are the current Centre County
commissioners.
3.
Respondent Louis T. Glantz, Esq. is the current Centre County solicitor.
4.
Respondent Courts are named in that they have been or will likely be approached
to appoint a special prosecutor under the County Code, and such an appointment would be
improper and illegal as described herein. Further, Petitioner believes and therefore avers that the
Court of Common Pleas of Centre County ignored Supreme Court Rules and, on its own,
designated a particular out-of-county judge to issue process, thereby illegally investing
jurisdiction in an out-of-county judge of its choosing. This rendered all process approved by that
judge void ab initio, including a document purporting to be a search warrant for the government
2
office of Petitioner District Attorney, leading to the seizure of sensitive governmental
information and exposing the identity of a confidential informant placing that person and his
family in danger. The confidential informant was critical in helping foil a plot to assassinate a
Centre County Assistant District Attorney.
5.
Petitioner has a long-standing adverse relationship with Respondent
Commissioners regarding various criminal justice policy issues and the Commissioners’ own
compliance with legal requirements. This includes, and is not limited to, the following:
a.
Investigating the son of one of the Commissioners in a murder case and
exposing his drug use to the community;
b.
Exposing a suppressed potential criminal investigation within the prison
and forcing the Commissioners to turn over documents to the State Police so that a proper
police investigation could be conducted.
c.
Proposing and gathering votes to pass a motion requiring that potential
criminal investigations within the prison be brought before the prison board for open
discussion and proper referral to criminal agencies rather than being decided solely by the
Commissioners in house, outside of the board.
d.
Contentious policy disagreements between Petitioner and the
Commissioners regarding the Commissioners’ efforts to loosen and lower work release
criteria for inmates which would have created serious safety risks in domestic violence
cases. Referring to protection from abuse orders, one Commissioner even asked, “Is
there some way to figure out what PFAs are legitimate or not?”
3
e.
Policy disagreements between Petitioner and Commissioners regarding
their impression that Petitioner seeks sentences that are “too long” and there are too many
people in jail, costing too much money, regardless of the risks to the public at large.
f.
Investigating the Commissioners for reported violations of the Sunshine
g.
At the explicit request of the Centre County Commissioners, and in
Act.
complete violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, Centre County President
Judge Thomas Kistler, summoned all Magisterial District Justices in the county to ask the
MDJs on behalf of the county commissioners, to consider lower bail in violent crime
cases in order to save money on jail costs to assist the commissioners in balancing the
county budget.
6.
Petitioner’s “tough on crime” approach to her duties, and refusal to agree to
lenient plea bargains that the local defense bar believed they previously enjoyed, contributed to
an adverse relationship with certain members of the local defense bar. Bernard Cantorna, Esq. is
one of those attorneys. Cantorna was a defense attorney for an aggravated child abuse case in
September of 2013, tried personally by Petitioner in her official capacity as attorney for the
Commonwealth. Cantorna’s experts performed so poorly on cross-examination that the last
purported expert left before testifying out of fear of being made a fool of on cross-examination.
After boasting for months that he would achieve an acquittal in the case, Cantorna’s client was
convicted of causing seriously bodily injury to an infant that was nearly fatal and sentenced to 10
to 20 years in state prison. Immensely embarrassed and humiliated in public and before his peers
in the bar, Cantorna began filing documents with actual malice and a reckless disregard for the
truth, and initiated and/or advanced a false, defamatory, and unethical attack against the District
4
Attorney, in retaliation for her doing her job, which had resulted in the conviction of Cantorna’s
child abusing client.
7.
Petitioner, in her duties as District Attorney, was the impetus in a drug trafficking
case and search warrants served on the office of the law firm of Philip M. Masorti for drug
trafficking. The search received widespread publicity, possibly damaging Masorti’s legal
business and causing him great personal embarrassment. Ultimately, a lawyer at the law firm of
Philip Masorti was prosecuted and disbarred for shipping drugs into Masorti’s office and
trafficking in illegal drugs. This same disgraced lawyer had been fired by Petitioner on her first
day on the job as District Attorney.
8.
The immediate controversy surrounds a false allegation that Petitioner signed the
signature of Centre County Court of Common Pleas Judge Pamela Reust on an order reducing
bail for an inmate in the Centre County jail. The allegation was originally made in an affidavit
of Michelle Shutt, a former paralegal in Petitioner’s office who went on to work for Philip
Masorti, Esq. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that Masorti prepared the affidavit.
Cantorna is a close confidant of Respondent Louis T. Glantz, Esq., the county solicitor.
Cantorna and Glantz have shared the same office space at the same law office for many years.
9.
The Shutt Affidavit is completely and categorically false.1 The truth of the matter
is that, as part of an investigation into an inmate’s solicitation to murder an Assistant District
Attorney, Petitioner arranged for the appearance of a reduction in bail and transfer of another
inmate who was cooperating with the investigation. The cooperating witness had been solicited
to assist in procuring a killer to attack an Assistant District Attorney, and Petitioner believed that
the bail reduction and transfer would cause the target to think that the cooperating witness had
5
been released from prison, furthering the undercover operation. The OAG was aware of the
operation, which only came to light because of the false Shutt Affidavit made well over a year
from the time of the event, and the wrongful actions of Respondents. These reckless actions only
serve to continue and increase the risk to the Assistant District Attorney, as well as to the
cooperating witness.
10.
While Judge Reust apparently does not recall this single bail reduction order
among the many orders that she signs daily, especially after the passage of more than 16 months,
Judge Reust did in fact sign the order in question. This is corroborated by contemporaneous
communications between Petitioner, her assistant district attorneys, case investigators, and the
OAG. In addition, the lawyer representing the confidential informant agreed to the ruse to
protect his client and assist the Commonwealth. That lawyer will testify that Petitioner requested
from him, and had permission, for Petitioner to ask Judge Reust to sign the “pretend bail order,”
to be used not to lower the informant’s bail, but to make it appear it had been lowered in order
for the target and anyone working with the target to falsely believe that the informant would be
in a position to assist in the carrying out the murder of an assistant district attorney.2
Nonetheless, as required under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, Petitioner followed wellestablished procedures and referred the matter to the OAG for investigation.
11.
Respondents and their conspirators seized on the false and defamatory Shutt
Affidavit as an opportunity to remove Petitioner from office. Posing as a member of the
“concerned public,” Cantorna appeared at the Commissioner’s meeting on January 20, 2015,
1
Shutt also claims that Petitioner had staffers do political work on County time. Both allegations are patently and
demonstrably false, but Petitioner promptly and properly reported the false allegations to the OAG,, the only
appropriate state investigative agency.
2
As the pretend bail order was never intended to be relied upon as real, and was always a ruse to fool a target of a
criminal investigation, Judge Reust’s signature, as a matter of law, could never form the basis for a forgery charge as
Petitioner, judge, defense attorney, OAG and everyone else involved except the target of the criminal investigation
specifically knew NOT to rely on the authenticity of the order.
6
and, along with solicitor Glantz, falsely and definitively stated that there was no investigation
underway by the OAG, that Petitioner was suppressing any investigation of the matter, and
discussed Petitioner’s resignation.
12.
Despite the referral to the OAG, the Commissioners and the Bellefonte Police
Department, led by the county solicitor, concocted an opportunity at a public meeting and
eagerly accepted the false Shutt Affidavit, and unlawfully set out to investigate, arrest, and
remove Petitioner from office.
13.
To this end, on Saturday night, January 24, 2015, officers from Respondent police
department executed a search warrant at Petitioner’s office at the Centre County District
Attorney’s Office, and seized physical items. Respondent police department could have, but did
not, ask Petitioner to voluntarily allow the proper prosecuting authorities to view the items
sought under conditions that would preclude tampering or damaging the items, as Petitioner was
prepared to do. Astoundingly, Bellefonte Police Detective Robert Ruggerio failed to seek to
have the warrant sealed despite the presence in the warrant of the identity of the confidential
informant who is still in prison, thus placing the informant in physical danger.
14.
Respondents were well aware that Petitioner reported the allegations to the OAG,
and that the OAG was investigating, when they obtained their so-called search warrant.3
Respondents elected not to approach the OAG to review and approve the affidavit for the search
warrant. Petitioner believes, and therefore avers, that Respondent sought no such review
knowing the OAG would refuse to approve the warrant because it is wholly defective. The
warrant and its affidavit fail to state a nexus to the allegations, are based on conjecture and
3
As set forth infra, the document is not really a “search warrant” since the authorization came from a judge without
jurisdiction to issue a search warrant. Petitioner avers that Bellefonte Police knowingly took items from Petitioner’s
office with actual knowledge that the warrant was defective and thus is currently in possession of property they
know to be stolen. See Exhibit “A” Petitioner’s Petition for Return of Seized Property.
7
innuendo, and lack probable cause. Instead of seeking OAG review, Respondent sought to rush
its seizures before the OAG could obtain a court order enjoining Respondent, which is evidence
of the improper motivations underlying Respondent’s purported investigation.
15.
The so-called search warrant lacked probable cause and is deficient under both the
Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions.
16.
Petitioner believes and therefore avers that the so-called search warrant was also
signed by an out-of-county judge without Supreme Court approval, and thus lacked jurisdiction
over the purported Bellefonte Police Department investigation. The search and seizure was
therefore wholly illegal. Centre County Judge Reust – whose signature was allegedly forged on
the bail order that prompted the controversy – for reasons unknown, signed an order handpicking Clinton County Judge Craig Miller for the Bellefonte Police Department investigation,
again all without Supreme Court approval.
17.
Moreover, Respondents are in the process of selecting a special prosecutor to
proceed against Petitioner, and claimed in newspaper quotes that they have already done so.
18.
All of the foregoing events and controversies make it absolutely clear that the
false allegations against Petitioner created a conflict of interest. Accordingly, Petitioner has
repeatedly, in writing through counsel, implored Respondents to stand down in favor of a proper
and impartial investigation by the OAG. Driven to remove Petitioner from office by any means
necessary, Respondents continue to persist with their reckless and improper investigation.
Request for Quo Warranto and Injunctive Relief
19.
The Court has original jurisdiction over this matter:
The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all cases
of:
(1) Habeas corpus.
(2) Mandamus or prohibition to courts of inferior jurisdiction.
8
(3) Quo warranto as to any officer of Statewide jurisdiction.
42 Pa.C.S. § 721.
20.
“The general rule is that a quo warranto action constitutes the proper method to
challenge title or right to public office.” Matter of One Hundred or More Qualified Electors of
Municipality of Clairton, 673 A.2d 879, 881 (Pa. 1996) (citing Andrezjwski v. Borough of
Millvale, 673 A.2d 879, 881 (Pa. 1996)).
21.
Petitioner has standing to bring this quo warranto action in light of her role as
District Attorney, and her special right or interest in the matter, namely, the unlawful attack on
her and her office by Respondents and Respondents’ to-be-selected special prosecutor. Id. at 286
(citing Spykerman v. Levy, 421 A.2d 641, 649 (Pa. 1980)).
22.
Respondents’ actions and their anticipated appointment of a special prosecutor are
unlawful.
23.
Respondents claim entitlement to proceed as they have (and will, unless enjoined)
under the 1955 County Code, 16, P.S. § 1406, which provides as follows:
If any district attorney is charged according to law, with any crime or
misdemeanor, before or bound over or committed by any court to answer for
willful and gross negligence in the execution of the duties of his office, it shall be
the duty of the court to appoint some competent attorney thereof to prepare an
indictment against such district attorney and to prosecute the same on behalf of
the Commonwealth until final judgment. Such attorney shall be paid by the
county for his services a reasonable compensation to be fixed by the court. If such
district attorney shall be convicted of any crime for which he may be sentenced to
imprisonment by separate or solitary confinement at labor, his office shall be
declared vacant by the court.
24.
Respondents’ position is fatally flawed in that the County Code was supplanted
by the 1980 Commonwealth Attorneys Act, which provides as follows:
(a) Prosecutions.--The Attorney General shall have the power to prosecute in any
county criminal court the following cases:
9
(1) Criminal charges against State officials or employees affecting the
performance of their public duties or the maintenance of the public trust and
criminal charges against persons attempting to influence such State officials or
employees or benefit from such influence or attempt to influence.
(2) Criminal charges involving corrupt organizations as provided for in 18
Pa.C.S. § 911 (relating to corrupt organizations).
(3) Upon the request of a district attorney who lacks the resources to conduct
an adequate investigation or the prosecution of the criminal case or matter or who
represents that there is the potential for an actual or apparent conflict of interest
on the part of the district attorney or his office.
(4) The Attorney General may petition the court having jurisdiction over any
criminal proceeding to permit the Attorney General to supersede the district
attorney in order to prosecute a criminal action or to institute criminal
proceedings. Upon the filing of the petition, the president judge shall request the
Supreme Court to assign a judge to hear the matter. The judge assigned shall hear
the matter within 30 days after appointment and make a determination as to
whether to allow supersession within 60 days after the hearing. The district
attorney shall be given notice of the hearing and may appear and oppose the
granting of the petition. Supersession shall be ordered if the Attorney General
establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the district attorney has failed
or refused to prosecute and such failure or refusal constitutes abuse of discretion.
(5) When the president judge in the district having jurisdiction of any criminal
proceeding has reason to believe that the case is a proper one for the intervention
of the Commonwealth, he shall request the Attorney General to represent the
Commonwealth in the proceeding and to investigate charges and prosecute the
defendant. If the Attorney General agrees that the case is a proper one for
intervention, he shall file a petition with the court and proceed as provided in
paragraph (4). If the Attorney General determines that the case is not a proper
case for intervention, he shall notify the president judge accordingly.
(6) Criminal charges investigated by and referred to him by a Commonwealth
agency arising out of enforcement provisions of the statute charging the agency
with a duty to enforce its provision.
71 P.S. § 732-205(a).
25.
The Commonwealth Attorneys Act conflicts with and supersedes the County
Code on the facts of this case, in that the later-enacted Commonwealth Attorneys Act provides to
the OAG the authority to investigate and prosecute Petitioner. “Whenever the provisions of two
or more statutes enacted finally by different General Assemblies are irreconcilable, the statute
latest in date of final enactment shall prevail.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1936.
10
26.
Aside from the superseding effect of the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, quo
warranto is appropriate in that the Respondent Commissioners and their counsel have
improperly acted to control the Office of the District Attorney in violation of separation of
powers requirements. See Ricci v. Matthews, 2 A.3d 1297 (Pa. Cmwlth 2010), aff’d in part,
vacated in part, and remanded, 21 A.3d 1187 (Pa. 2011)). In that case, the Montgomery County
Board of Commissioners enacted an ordinance that prohibited line employees of the District
Attorney and County Sheriff from engaging in political fundraising, seeking others to do so,
managing a political campaign, or from seeking candidacy for public office. The
Commonwealth Court, which this Court affirmed in relevant part, invalidated the ordinance
because the Commissioners lacked authority to regulate line employees under the supervision of
the District Attorney and County Sheriff. Id. at 1301-1302.
27.
The lesson from Ricci to be applied here is that Respondent Commissioners and
their agents have no authority to assert jurisdiction over the investigation.
Likelihood of Success on the Merits and Irreparable Harm
28.
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo as it exists or
as it existed before the acts complained of, thereby preventing irreparable injury or gross
injustice which might occur before the merits of a case can be heard and determined. American
Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc. v. Laughlin, 623 A. 2d 854, 856 (Pa. Super. 1993);
Township of Clinton v. Carmat, Inc., 432 A.2d 238, 239 (Pa. Super. 1981). The criteria
governing the issuance of a preliminary injunction are well settled. An injunction is warranted
when the moving party demonstrates: (1) that the injunction is necessary to prevent immediate
and irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by damages; (2) that greater injury
would result from refusing an injunction than from granting it, and, concomitantly, that issuance
11
of an injunction will not substantially harm other interested parties in the proceedings; (3) that a
preliminary injunction will probably restore the parties to their status as it existed immediately
prior to the alleged wrongful conduct; (4) that the activity it seeks to restrain is actionable, that
its right to relief is clear, and that the wrong is manifest, or, in other words, that it is likely to
prevail on the merits; (5) that the injunction it seeks is reasonably suited to abate the offending
activity; and (6) that a preliminary injunction will not adversely affect the public interest.
Warehime v. Warehime, 860 A.2d 41, 46-47 (Pa. 2004).
29.
Petitioner respectfully submits that she is likely to succeed on merits of this quo
warranto action for the reasons stated above. Namely, the Commonwealth Attorneys Act
supersedes the portion of the County Code on which Respondents rely, the OAG is the only
appropriate investigative state agency for this matter, and Ricci teaches that county
commissioners are not allowed to interfere with the operation of the Office of the District
Attorney.
30.
Petitioner faces the threat of immediate and irreparable harm absent the
intervention of this Court. The above-described actions of Respondent Commissioners and
police have demonstrated a clear agenda to remove Petitioner from office by any means
necessary, including their indefensible refusal to yield the investigation to the OAG. If allowed
to proceed, Respondents will seek and obtain appointment of a special prosecutor, arrest
Petitioner on false charges, and proceed to replace her under the County Code. Such harm is
irreparable and unjust.
31.
Respondents face no harm from the relief Petitioner seeks. To the contrary, if
anything, standing down in favor of a proper investigation by the OAG will save the taxpayers of
12
Centre County the costs of special prosecutors and special counsel engaged to address the
wrongful actions against Petitioner.
32.
Petitioners’ requested relief also serves the public interest. Given the cloud of
personal agendas that surrounds Respondents’ actions, there can be no confidence in the
Respondent commissioners or police with respect to this matter. The public trust will be
furthered by an impartial investigation by the OAG, and by having such an investigation proceed
without Respondents’ interference. Further, as Ricci teaches, policy interests favor the
separation of powers between legislative and executive bodies. This interest is furthered if
Respondent commissioners’ efforts to assert jurisdiction over the Office of the District Attorney
are halted. It is indeed bad policy for county commissioners to be empowered to unseat a duly
elected district attorney with false allegations of criminal conduct.
13
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court enter the accompanying
proposed order and set the matter for hearing.
Respe$, lly submitted,
110 FAS CASTOR
,Bruce L. Castor, Jr.
26/East Athens Avenue
Ardmore, PA. 19003
Phone: 610,285-.7338
Facsimile: 877.649.7 66
0 H SCF
FO
L
By: ..Zobert S.14intner, Esq., Patrick J. Murphy, Esq. and
Eric F. Reed, Esq.
2000 Market Street, 20th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215.299.2000
Facsimile: 215.299.2150
Attorneys for Petitioner
Dated: January 29, 2015
14
EXHIBIT A
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
STACY PARKS MILLER,
PETITIONER
v.
BELLEFONTE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
RESPONDENT
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
NO.
PETITION FOR RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY
The District Attorney of Centre County (“Petitioner”), Stacy Parks Miller,
by and through her counsel Bruce L. Castor, Jr., requests this Honorable
Court order the Bellefonte Police Department (“Respondent”) to return property
seized from her government office January 24, 2015, and in support thereof
respectfully represents:
1.
Petitioner is the twice elected District Attorney of Centre County,
Pennsylvania.
2.
Respondent is the Bellefonte Police Department, Bellefonte, Centre
County, Pennsylvania.
3.
On Saturday, January 24, 2015, officers from Respondent police
department executed a search warrant at the Centre County District Attorney’s
Office of Petitioner and seized physical items.
4.
Respondent did not ask Petitioner to voluntarily allow the proper
prosecuting authorities to view the items sought under conditions that would
preclude tampering or damaging the items, as Petitioner was prepared to do.
5.
Petitioner believes and therefore avers that said seized physical items are
in the possession of Respondent in Centre County.
6.
Petitioner believes and therefore avers that the search warrant executed
on her office lacked probable cause to permit such a search and seizure in
violation of the U.S. and the Pennsylvania Constitutions.
7.
Petitioner believes and therefore avers that said search warrant contains
material and intentional falsehoods, as well as misstatements of fact, all in
reckless disregard for the truth.
8.
Petitioner believes and therefore avers that said search warrant is further
invalid in that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the warrant.
9.
Petitioner avers that the warrant application itself indicates that it was
not approved by an attorney for the Commonwealth.
10. Petitioner believes and therefore avers when it obtained the warrant,
Respondent was well aware that the Office of the Attorney General is
conducting the investigation of allegations against Petitioner, and that
Petitioner is fully cooperating with that investigation.
11. Respondent elected, for reasons unknown, not to approach the OAG to
review and approve the affidavit. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that
Respondent sought no such review knowing the OAG would refuse to approve
the warrant as wholly defective, failing to state a nexus to the allegations,
based on conjecture and innuendo, and lacking probable cause. Instead,
Respondent sought to rush its seizures before the OAG could obtain a court
order enjoining Respondent, which is evidence of the improper motivations
underlying Respondent’s purported investigation.
12. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that Respondent sought and
obtained said search warrant in direct contravention of an explicit order of the
proper prosecuting authority, the Office of Attorney General.
13. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that the items seized are
necessary to the performance of her duties as District Attorney and that
Respondent is obstructing the administration of justice by unlawfully retaining
them.
14. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that the Commissioners of Centre
County are actively engaging in official oppression against the District Attorney
in retaliation for multiple motives, including but not limited to:
A. Investigating the son of one of the Commissioners in a murder case
and exposing his drug use to the community;
B. Exposing a suppressed potential criminal investigation within the
prison and forcing the Commissioners to turn over documents to the
State Police so that a proper police investigation could be conducted.
C. Proposing and gathering votes to pass a motion requiring that
potential criminal investigations within the prison be brought before
the prison board for open discussion and proper referral to criminal
agencies rather than being decided solely by the Commissioners in
house outside of the board.
D. Contentious policy disagreements between Petitioner and the
Commissioners regarding the Commissioners’ efforts to loosen and
lower work release criteria for inmates which would have created
serious safety risks in domestic violence cases. One Commissioner
even asked, “Is there some way to figure out what PFAs are legitimate
or not?”
E. Policy disagreements between Petitioner and Commissioners regarding
their impression that Petitioner seeks sentences that are “too long”
and there are too many people in jail costing too much money
regardless of the risks to the public at large.
F. Investigating the Commissioners for reported violations of the
Sunshine Act.
15. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that the Solicitor of Centre County
Louis Glantz, Esq. in conspiracy with County Commissioners Steve Dershem,
Chris Exarchos, and Michael Pipe, and lawyers Bernard Cantorna, Esq. and
Phil Masorti, Esq., with actual malice, and a reckless disregard for the truth,
has initiated and/or advanced a false, defamatory, and unethical attack
against the District Attorney, in retaliation for the District Attorney performing
her Constitutional duties to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth as set forth
above and below:
A. Philip Masorti, Esq., brought forward a forgery complaint to the press
in his role as the current employer of Petitioner’s accuser. Petitioner,
in her duties as District Attorney, was the impetus in a drug
trafficking case and search warrants served on the office of the law
firm of Phil Masorti for drug trafficking. Ultimately, a lawyer at the law
firm of Phil Masorti, was subsequently prosecuted and disbarred for
shipping drugs into Masorti’s office and trafficking in illegal drugs.
B. Bernard Cantorna, Esquire, was a defense attorney for an aggravated
child abuse case in September of 2013, tried personally by the District
Attorney in her official capacity as attorney for the Commonwealth.
Cantorna’s experts performed so poorly on cross examination that the
last purported expert left before testifying out of fear of being made a
fool of on cross-examination. The Defendant was convicted of causing
seriously bodily injury to an infant that was nearly fatal and
sentenced to 10 – 20 years in state prison. Cantorna began filing
documents with actual malice, and a reckless disregard for the truth,
and initiated and/or advanced a false, defamatory, and unethical
attack against the District Attorney, in retaliation for her doing her job
resulting in the conviction of Cantorna’s child abusing client.
C. Bernard Cantorna, Esquire, is a close confidant of county solicitor
Louis Glantz, Esquire. They have shared the same office space at the
same law office for many years.
D. Seeking a full and fair investigation, Petitioner forwarded the forgery
allegation to a neutral law enforcement agency immediately upon
learning of the forgery allegation.
E. Despite this, at a Commissioner’s meeting on January 20, 2015,
Bernard Cantorna, Esq., close friend to Solicitor Glantz, appeared at
that meeting, posing as a member of the “concerned public,” and he,
Solicitor Glantz, and the other conspirators lied to the public by
definitively stating “for sure” there was no investigation underway,
when the matter was already referred to, and accepted by, of the
Office of Attorney General. Furthermore, the conspirators falsely,
maliciously and recklessly stated Petitioner was suppressing the
investigation and discussed her “resignation.”
F. At that meeting, all parties acted with actual malice, and a reckless
disregard for the truth, and have initiated and/or advanced a false,
defamatory, and unethical attack against Petitioner District Attorney
in retaliation for her zealously representing the Commonwealth on
behalf of the people of Centre County.
16. Since the January 20, 2015 meeting, members of this conspiracy (including
at least one lawyer, Solicitor Glantz, subject to the Pennsylvania Rules of
Professional Responsibility) have gone on television and given interviews, acting
with actual malice, and a reckless disregard for the truth, and have initiated
and/or advanced a false, defamatory, and unethical attack against the District
Attorney in retaliation for her doing her job
17. Members of this conspiracy have also directed the Respondent to
intervene/interfere with the OAG’s investigation to further their conspiracy in
retaliation against Petitioner for doing her job.
18. Petitioner believes and therefore avers Respondent, acting at the behest
of the conspirators, is unlawfully holding items integral to the administration of
justice in Centre County, without which Petitioner cannot properly perform her
duties as District Attorney, potentially compromising pending investigations
and prosecutions, and thereby putting the citizens of Centre County at risk.
19. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that Respondent has unlawfully
seized legally protected investigative material including, but not limited to,
material related to confidential informants and electronic surveillance.
20. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that Respondent, at least
unwittingly, is abetting the advancement of the malicious, reckless, unethical
and illegal attack on the District Attorney by the County Commissioners,
Solicitor Glantz and lawyers Cantorna and Masorti, despite the fact that the
matter is in the hands of the Office of Attorney General properly having been
referred by Petitioner as required under the Commonwealths’ Attorneys Act.
21. Rules 353 and 588 empower the Court to order the return of the seized
items to Petitioner.
22. The Commonwealth’s Attorneys Act explicitly states that the District
Attorney shall be the “Chief Law Enforcement Officer” for the county in which
that official serves. By definition, Respondent is a subordinate law
enforcement agency to the office held by Petitioner. Petitioner believes and
therefore avers that only the Office of Attorney General has jurisdiction to
investigate Petitioner under the law, and Respondent knowingly exceeded its
authority to advance the agenda of persons outside of law enforcement by
circumventing the correct legal procedures that the OAG had already begun to
employ.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner, the District Attorney of Centre County,
respectfully requests Your Honorable Court order an immediate hearing
directing Respondent to show cause why Respondent should not forthwith be
required to return all items seized from Petitioner under color of a search
warrant executed on Petitioner’s County office January 24, 2015.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bruce L. Castor, Jr.
Attorney ID #46370
ROGERS CASTOR
26 East Athens Avenue
Ardmore, PA. 19003
Direct: 610.285.7338
Fax: 877.649.7966
[email protected]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Petition was served on January 29, 2015 via
FedEx to the ibllowing:
Jason Kutulakis, Esq.
Abom and Kutulakis, LLP
2 W. High Streeet
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorneys for Respondents Centre County
Board of Commissioners and Commissioners
Dershem, Exarchos, and Pipe
Louis Glantz, Esq.
Centre County Solicitor
Glantz, Johnson and Associates
1901 East College Avenue
State College, PA 16801
Mayor Thomas J. Wilson
Borough of Bellefonte
236 West Lamb Street
Bellefonte, PA, 16823
Chief Shawn P. Weaver
Bellefonte Police Department
236 West Lamb Street
Bellefonte, PA, 16823
Hon. Thomas Kistler, President Judge
Court of Common Pleas for Centre County
102 South Allegheny Street
Bellefonte, PA 16823
Hon. Craig P. Miller, President Judge
Court of Common Pleas for Clinton County
230 East Water Street
Lock Haven, PA 17745