About That Oath

Much like in the case of the PSU 3, the critical evidence supporting AG Kane's perjury charges is of questionable origin.

By

Ray Blehar

The PA Corruption Network's Playbook, (December 29, 2015) outlined how corrupt prosecutors use dubious evidence to make cases against targets.  

For the PSU 3, it was emails of dubious provenance that provided the (alleged) evidence of perjury and other crimes.  

Ferman's smoking gun will be undone

For Pennsylvania Attorney General (AG) Kane, it was an oath of similarly dubious provenance that is now being portrayed by the Corruption Network as the smoking gun evidence against Kane.

Let's rewind the clock and see how that went down.

On August 6, 2015, then Montgomery County District Attorney, Risa Ferman threw more than her fair share of admiration toward the investigators and prosecutors -- who regurgitated much of the evidence from the grand jury --to craft the initial Kane charges.

"The investigators and prosecutors alike, they were meticulous. They were thorough. They were detailed, and this investigation was as comprehensive as any we've ever done."

According to the August charging documents, Kane had allegedly committed perjury and false swearing regarding four things she stated under oath (see below).

The evidence supporting the allegations was mostly based on the testimony of Bruce Beemer, James Barker, and Adrian King -- all of whom seemingly have motivations to take down AG Kane.  

As is typically the case with prosecutor's documents, evidence in favor of the prosecutor's version of events (e.g., Kane is lying and leaked information to get back at Fina) is included while the evidence against is excluded.  

But no matter how much the charging documents talk around the subject of who leaked the grand jury information,  the fact is that Ferman admitted she couldn't directly link AG Kane to the documents released.  

After that, all the rest is bluster.

That's why Ferman needed something else...

Ferman's investigators and prosecutors weren't as thorough as she said they were

   

The Secrecy Oath

On September 17, 2015, Ferman's "meticulous" gang of investigators made a visit to an undisclosed office in Strawberry Square and allegedly found an oath that they had not previously found in their other (meticulous and thorough) forays into the AG's office. 

  

To be fair, the investigators were probably searching for a document that looked somewhat official and were likely thrown off by the very unofficial secrecy oath document.  

The allegedly official "SECRECY OATH" document is about as official looking as Saddam Hussein's "Baby Milk Plant" sign that was fabricated and planted after his chemical weapons facility was bombed.

Prior to the stunning discovery of the oath, the "meticulous" investigative team was seemingly content to use the  grand jury testimony (page 15) of James Barker to allege Kane lied about not being covered by secrecy regarding the Mondesire grand jury.

Barker,who was called to testify on three occasions, stated that there is an implied ongoing obligation to keep grand jury information secret even after the grand jury is no longer in session.  




Consistent with Barker's testimony,  Kane testified that she had all of those newly hired by her office sign grand jury secrecy oaths for ongoing grand juries but not oaths for prior grand juries.  

Six weeks later, the Ferman investigators got a tip to take another look into they previously searched.  

Anonymous tip.  Where have we heard that before?

After finding the oath, King, among others, corroborated the meeting took place and oaths were signed.  The actual language in the presentation, however, is deceptive because neither King nor anyone else made any specific reference to signing oaths pertaining to previous grand juries.  

Given the PA Corruption Network's history with the PSU 3 case, it's not going out on a limb to float the idea that the oath document and related information were fabricated and planted.   

Kane and Shargel: Didn't crumble when
faced with dubious evidence about oath

Part of the Network's playbook is to present surprise evidence to the unsuspecting targets (and their  attorneys), who believe that their legal adversaries are actually playing by the rules. In that moment, the network's attorneys hope that the target or his/her legal counsel believe they have been caught red-handed and opt for a plea deal.

That didn't happen with Kane, just like the "flip" -- that Fina hoped for  -- didn't happen in the PSU 3 case.

The 2009 oath is hardly a smoking gun -- it's more like a boomerang.

A boomerang that will eventually come back and strike Judge Risa Vetri Ferman. 

Ferman Presser: Lies, Contradictions, & Ethics Violations

Then-Montgomery County DA Risa Ferman's August 2015 press conference contained lies and contradictions

By
Ray Blehar

On December 29th, I wrote that step #5 of the PA Corruption Network's Playbook was for prosecutors to go public with trumped up charges based on questionable evidence and/or falsehoods in order to publicly smear political opponents.

Then-DA Risa Ferman's August 6, 2015 press conference -- like those given by former Attorney General (AG) Linda Kelly in relation to charging PSU officials Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier -- was a page out of the "playbook" and contained a number of falsehoods.

Lies

Vermin's, er, Ferman's statements regarding the actions of AG's Kane's head of security, Patrick Rocco Reese, were absolutely false and were likely made in an attempt to establish a non-existent link between grand jury information and Kane.

At 9:29:

"Also filed today, we filed a charge of indirect criminal contempt against  Patrick Rocco Reese....he's charged with indirect criminal contempt based upon the evidence we gathered which would prove he secretly snuck into the grand jury files in violation of a protection order issued by Judge Carpenter."

At 10:16:

"After that protection order was issued, Agent Reese, on a repeated basis, snuck into those grand jury files and obtained confidential grand jury information."  


Reese was charged with Violation of a Protective Order, however the supporting evidence in no way proved that any grand jury information was ever in the possession of Reese. 

Protective Order Notice #123 stated that all grand jury information was retained by Supervising Judge William Carpenter and Special Prosecutor Thomas Carluccio, thus could not have been accessed by an email search of the AG Office's email system -- regardless of whether Reese "snuck" into the files or not.

The "secretly snuck" language in Ferman's statements are solely based on the dubious testimony of the actual grand jury leaker, Adrian King.  

Reese was convicted -- by Judge Carpenter, not a jury -- for using email search terms that prosecutors alleged were attempts to find out information about the grand jury investigation of Kane.  Reese is rightfully appealing the conviction.

But Ferman didn't stop there.  

As we saw in the case of the PSU 3, the law was misinterpreted (intentionally) to allege that Kane was behind the "scheme" to leak confidential materials.

At 6:00, Ferman stated:

The materials gathered and distributed in the course of this scheme were confidential investigative materials.  And confidential investigative information is protected in Pennsylvania by  a statute.  It's called the Criminal History Records and Information Act.   In law enforcement we refer to it as the acronym, "cree-ah", C-H-R-I-A and it is detailed in the charging documents.

First, Kane wasn't charged with violating CHRIA.  Next, neither the grand jury presentment nor the charging documents contain any details about CHRIA.  The grand jury presentment made two references to CHRIA that simply cited its title and code.   

Ferman deceived the public by never explaining the law (in the AOPC) and by using the irrelevant grand jury testimony of Adrian King to make the case that Kane released information covered under CHRIA.  See below.

The alleged confidential material that was leaked to the press was a transcript -- compiled in 2014 -- by David Peifer, the Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau of Special Investigations.  The transcript was not part of the AG's or any other criminal investigative file.  Nor was it the result of any  formal or informal criminal investigation or inquiry -- the legal requirement to be considered "investigation information" under CHRIA.

This evidence indicates that Ferman purposely misinterpreted the law (and deceived the public about it) in order to publicly allege a conspiracy by Kane.  

Contradictions

Ferman's statements at the outset of her press conference about leaking of grand jury were contradicted later in the press conference.

At 4:37 Ferman stated:  

"This investigative team determined that Attorney General Kathleen Kane devised a scheme to secretly leak confidential criminal investigation information and secret grand jury materials directly to political operatives in the hopes of embarrassing and harming former state prosecutors, whom she believed -- she believed without evidence -- that made her look bad.  

The affidavit of probable cause, which is our charging document, you have before you, details how this scheme was accomplished and the crux of it was obtaining and compiling this confidential information, delivering it to a political operative with instructions to leak it to the press, all designed to make it look like a former prosecutor went soft on a corruption investigation."

At 24:20, Ferman refuted the earlier statement, explaining that Kane didn't compile and deliver the materials.

If you, if you read through the evidence that relates to the conspiracy charge, it is clear for the evidence we gathered, that while the Attorney General orchestrated and directed the scheme, that she, herself, did not compile the materials and deliver them to Mr. Morrow.  So clearly, there were at least one other, perhaps, more individuals involved, and that is the crux of conspiracy.  What a conspiracy means, in the most basic terms, is the act of one is the act of all. So all of the people involved in the leak of that information can be responsible."

As my January 1st blogpost pointed out, Ferman had no evidence of Kane possessing any grand jury materials at the time the Philadelphia Daily News story went to press, thus she was making material misstatements at the press conference.

Ethics?

In late December, the press reported that Kane is under investigation by the Ethics Commission based on a complaint lodged by a citizen activist. 

Interestingly enough, concerned citizens of Pennsylvania could make an ethics case against Ferman for the extrajudicial statements she made at her press conference. 

At 13:40:

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is a sad day for the citizens of Pennsylvania and it is a sad day for all of us in law enforcement.  A prosecutor has the responsibility as a minister of justice, and when he or she does her job honorably - as we should - we honor our oath.  We stand up and do what is right every day.  When someone is entrusted with upholding the law, violates that oath and violates that law we are bound to uphold, we are all victims -- everyone of us.  When an elected official violates the public trust and violates his or her oath, it is up to us to stand up and hold that person accountable.

Obviously, to tell all of Pennsylvania's citizens that they are victims of Kane is poisoning the jury pool and appears to be a "textbook" example of a prejudicial statement.

The flip side happened at 12:33:

I'd like to thank the staff members of the Office of the Attorney General - current and former.  Members of the staff who displayed moral courage in standing up to share information they had. It takes tremendous courage to stand up and, in essence, tell on your boss.  It's a hard thing to do.  It takes personal courage.  And they had it.  They took actions at great risk to themselves personally and professionally.  And I thank them.


Heaping praise on the AG staff  -- Commonwealth's witnesses - for their "moral courage" and "personal courage" also serves to prejudice the jury pool against Kane.  

According to Ferman, the following individuals had moral courage and took great professional risk:

1.  Adrian King -- the actual leaker of information who likely got immunity for putting the onus on Kane.

2.  James Barker -- who oversaw the AG's "leaky" investigative grand jury unit and was fired due to the unit's performance.

3. Bruce Beemer - who will likely become the AG if Kane is removed.  Talk about professional risk?

Around the 20 minute mark of the press conference, one (clueless) reporter asked Ferman,  

"Do you have a membership card in the Good Old Boy's Network in Harrisburg?

She responded by saying:  

"I don't think they've invited me."


Ferman was actually being truthful -- about Boys and Harrisburg.  

The Good Old Boy's Network doesn't just include men and it's not just in Harrisburg -- it's all across Pennsylvania.  One of the network's specialties is perverting the justice system to fit personal and/or political agendas.

The evidence in the Kane case strongly indicates that Montgomery County Judge, Risa Vetri Ferman used the Network's "playbook" and is part of the PA Corruption Network. 


Next: About that oath.

Who Are The Leakers, Ms. Ferman?

Among all of the bluster about AG Kathleen Kane's alleged orchestration of a grand jury leak, why didn't the media ask Risa Ferman for the name of the leaker?

By
Ray Blehar

According to Montgomery County District Attorney (DA) Risa Ferman and the media, Attorney General (AG) Kathleen Kane has committed the crime of the century by allegedly orchestrating a leak of grand jury information.  

The crazy thing about all of this bluster (over Kane) is that information from grand juries and criminal investigations are leaked with regularity to the press.  At Ferman's press conference, one (honest) reporter more or less asked Ferman what the big deal was about the leaks.

The fact is that the media rarely, if ever, treats leak cases with any seriousness at all -- unless it involves someone they want to take down.

Pardon me while I reminisce back to the case of CIA employee, Valerie Plame... 

...the media was in a lather to see Karl Rove and/or Dick Cheney "perp-walked" out of the White House for leaking classified information about the identity of a CIA agent.  The media waited in great anticipation for the results of the special investigation and when it happened it was a non-event. Neither Rove nor Cheney were found responsible.  The actual leaker, Richard Armitage, was not charged and received little to no media attention. 

As it turned out, the investigation ended up charging an underling in Cheney's office named Lewis "Scooter" Libby.  Like Kane, Libby didn't leak information that was subject to secrecy rules.  And, much like Kane, he got caught in a perjury trap and was found guilty of that and lesser charges.  

About 8 minutes in to  Ferman's press conference, she announced the full list of charges -- which did not allege Kane leaked grand jury information.  Instead, Ferman charged her with conspiracy.

The press conference was almost over before any reporter asked a question that came close to getting at the identity of the persons or person behind the leaks, however, the question was more like an accusation --  that Kane's head of her security detail, Patrick Reese, was involved in the conspiracy with Kane.

In order to clear the matter up, Ferman responded by giving an explanation of what a conspiracy is.

"If you read through the evidence, it is clear for the evidence we gathered, that while the Attorney General orchestrated and directed the scheme, that she, herself, did not compile the materials and deliver them to Mr. Morrow.  So clearly, there were at least one other, perhaps, more individuals involved, and that is the crux of conspiracy.  What a conspiracy means, in the most basic terms, is the act of one is the act of all. So all of the people involved in the leak of that information can be responsible."

Ferman:  Claims conspiracy is an "act of all," but doesn't charge leaker, co-conspirators. 

So after hearing Ferman's explanation of a conspiracy, the press naturally asked who else was involved, right?

Nope. 

King: Leaked information but wasn't charged

The next question was: "If Kane is convicted of these crimes, should she lose her law license?"

Clearly, the media really doesn't care who the leaked grand jury information or that grand jury information was leaked at all.  It certainly hasn't spent any time at all demanding answers about James Reeder's investigation into the Sandusky and DeNaples grand jury leaks.  


And if leaking grand jury information was such a terrible crime and betrayal of public trust, then why didn't Risa Ferman charge the leaker -- Adrian King?  

The evidence in the grand jury presentment clearly shows the grand jury information (i.e., the 2009 memorandum and emails) was provided to Josh Morrow by Adrian King.

 Morrow testified that King left a clasped envelope containing a manila folder for him to retrieve.  The manila folder's contents included the 2009 memo, two emails, and the Miletto transcript.  Under the grand jury act, the 2009 memo, and perhaps the two emails,  were subject to grand jury secrecy rules.  The transcript was not.

Going backwards in time, King testified that a plain (unmarked) sealed envelope was left on his desk (by someone) and that he took it with him to Philadelphia and provided it to Morrow. 

The evidence in the grand jury presentment (paragraph one below) clearly shows that AG Kane did not have the 2009 memo and/or the emails in her possession until 24 July 2014, thus could not have placed it in the unmarked envelope for King.  

However, that didn't stop prosecutors from trying to make it look like Kane put in the memo and emails in the "packet" -- not envelope --  for King (paragraph 2) that was eventually released to the press.  But the fact is being aware of a document and discussing it does not equal evidence of possession of the document.

Unless you believe in time travel, the grand jury found no evidence that Kane put the 2009 memorandum and emails in the envelope for King.  

Let's review:

April 22, 2014: King found a sealed UNMARKED envelope which -- according to sworn testimony -- he believed contained campaign information for Morrow.  

April 23, 2014: Morrow received a clasped envelope from King that contained a manila folder -- "packet" -- with the word JOSH written on it.  Within that manila folder -- "packet" -- was the 2009 memorandum and emails.

June 6, 2014:   Chris Brennan's Philadelphia Daily News article containing information from the 2009 memorandum went to press.

July 25, 2014:  An email was sent to AG Kane that included the 2009 memorandum and the emails as attachments.

The timeline of the evidence speaks for itself.  What was allegedly left for King was not the same package that King delivered to Morrow.  And if King was the only person to possess the packet, then he added the 2009 memorandum and the emails.

Let me go out on a limb here and guess that Adrian King testified under a grant of immunity and that is why he wasn't charged.   

The only question that remains is if anyone else from the AG's office conspired to leak this information (to undermine AG Kane) and who they are.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Risa Ferman's "ongoing investigation" to identify those individuals.

Up next: Luckily, Ferman wasn't under oath at her August press conference

Best Wishes for a Happy & Truthful New Year!

The PA Corruption Network's Playbook

The similarities between the prosecution of Kathleen Kane and of the PSU 3 reveal the "playbook" of Pennsylvania's corruption network

By

Ray Blehar

The cases of current Pennsylvania Attorney General (AG) Kathleen Kane and that of former Penn State University (PSU) officials (i.e., the PSU 3) are connected by a common thread.

A group of the Commonwealth's attorneys, judges, political operatives, and their media accomplices -- hereafter referred to as the "network" -- used trumped up charges, purposely misinterpreted laws, and oversold highly dubious evidence to convict these individuals in the court of public opinion.

After examining the timelines and evidence of these cases, it appears that the network has a well defined playbook for taking out its targets and it works like this:

1.  Individuals within the network fear their own heinous acts may be exposed and publicly accuse their opponents of crimes as a means of  deflecting attention away from themselves. 

2.  The network next co-opts individuals close to the target(s) --insiders -- to assist in setting up the target(s) to be charged with perjury and other crimes.

3.  After the insiders have sufficiently undermined the targets (using various means of deception), the network's attorneys and/or judges leak damaging information about the targets to the media. 

4.  The media arm of the network uses the information in an attempt to compromise the targets or to promote guilt by association in the press.

5.  At the conclusion of this "framing," that was mislabeled as a criminal investigation, attorneys go public with charging documents that allege crimes based on misinterpretations of the laws and that are chocked full of questionable testimony from unreliable witnesses, completely illogical scenarios, and dubious evidence.  Perjury charges are standard in order to publicly smear the defendants as being dishonest individuals while attempting to pump up the veracity of the Commonwealth's lousy witnesses (who would be eviscerated at an actual trial).

6.  The media accomplices ignore the illegal application of relevant laws, that the charging documents are illogical, the lousy witnesses, and the highly questionable evidence in order to continue treating the allegations as facts and even go as far as to allege the target committed crimes for which he or she has not been charged.

7.  The public falls for the deception and believes the targets are guilty of everything and are corrupt individuals -- whether they have been charged with a crime or not. Citizen activists, public officials, and other groups and individuals -- who are beneficiaries of the corrupt network -- jump on the media bandwagon to publicly condemn the targets.

8.  Witting and/or unwitting employers recommend the targets be relieved of their duties or actually do so through employment actions -- before anything is proven and without conducting a legitimate legal review.  

9.  When legal proceedings in the cases reveal the false and questionable testimony put forth in the charging documents and the dubious evidence used in the case, the network's media arm ignores the information and continues to slant the reports so the public continues to assume the targets are guilty.

10.  The legal issues from the misapplications of the laws result in appeals to the network's  judges, who refused to rule on simple matters and keep the trials on permanent hold.  If the cases make it to trial, the targets will be convicted of lesser crimes -- that the media will treat like crimes of the century.

The network's playbook achieves the goal of protecting its corrupt dealings and/or heinous crimes by never legally proving, but publicly scapegoating the targets in a media firestorm that is high in supposition and light on facts.

To wit:  the grand jury and Montgomery County DA Risa Ferman did not find the evidence to charge AG Kane with directly leaking grand grand jury information in the Mondesire case, but you wouldn't know that if you just read the news headlines. 

Instead, they charged her with perjury (part of the playbook), lesser crimes, and for orchestrating the leaks, the latter of which Ferman and others know can't be proven.

Then again, the network's playbook doesn't necessarily include actually prosecuting the case -- because the media has already done it. 

In the following weeks, the dubious evidence used in Kane's case will be exposed, as will the details showing how the network of attorney, judges, and media worked together in an attempt to prevent AG Kathleen Kane from breaking PA's chain of corruption.