Kane Lawsuit

8/20/2019 Kane Lawsuit

1/30

113785965v1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL A. CARLSON and :

MICHAEL J. CRANGA, :

:

Plaintiffs :

:

v. :

:

KATHLEEN G. KANE and :

JONATHAN A. DUECKER, :

:

Defendants :

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Michael A. Carlson and Michael J. Cranga, through their

attorneys, Post & Schell, PC, respectfully allege as follows for their Complaint:

NATUREOFTHE CASE

1. Plaintiffs Michael A. Carlson and Michael J. Cranga are experienced

and highly qualified investigative agents at the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney

General (“OAG”). Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga were instrumental in the

investigation of Philadelphia-area politicians who were caught on tape taking

bribes.

2. That investigation, thus far, has resulted in four guilty pleas and one

no contest plea to corruption charges brought by the Philadelphia District

Attorney’s Office.

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ & 0< =,


2/30

213785965v1

3. Despite these successful prosecutions, Pennsylvania Attorney General

Kathleen Kane had previously decided to not bring charges based on this

investigation, publicly claiming that it was racially motivated and poorly

conducted, thus impugning the reputations of Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga.

4. After Ms. Kane declined to bring charges, the Philadelphia District

Attorney’s Office presented the results of the investigation to a grand jury to

determine whether charges should be filed.

5. Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga were subpoenaed to testify before

that grand jury.

6. As described in more detail below, Ms. Kane directed Agent Carlson

and Agent Cranga to lie to the grand jury supervising judge and falsely state that

they wanted to get an attorney before considering whether to testify. This would

prevent Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga from testifying before the grand jury as

scheduled, while Ms. Kane used her office to attempt to quash their subpoenas.

7. Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga refused to lie, and testified truthfully

before the grand jury. Their testimony contradicted Ms. Kane’s claims about the

investigation.

8. The grand jury specifically rejected Ms. Kane’s claims in

recommending that charges be filed.

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ - 0< =,


3/30

313785965v1

9. One of the individuals charged as a result of the grand jury later

moved to dismiss the charges based on Ms. Kane’s claims about the investigation.

When information from the grand jury, including Agent Carlson and Agent

Cranga’s testimony, was revealed to the defendant, she withdrew her motion.

10. Because of their testimony, Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga were

blacklisted by Ms. Kane and Jonathan Duecker, her Chief of Staff and close

confidant, who was directly involved in personnel decisions. Ms. Kane and Mr.

Duecker retaliated against Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga in a number of ways,

including denying them promotions for which they were qualified and promoting

less qualified individuals instead, and selectively implicating them in a

sensationalized email scandal, while shielding others, including Ms. Kane’s sister,

from the reputational harm that resulted.

11. Through this action, commenced pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Agent

Carlson and Agent Cranga seek to hold Ms. Kane and Mr. Duecker accountable for

maliciously and wantonly retaliating against them in violation of the First

Amendment.

JURISDICTION ANDVENUE

12. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331

because this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because this action is commenced to redress the

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ < 0=


4/30

413785965v1

deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the Constitution of the

United States.

13. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)

because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims

occurred in this district.

PARTIES

14. Plaintiff Michael A. Carlson is a resident of Adams County,

Pennsylvania, and is currently employed as an investigative agent in the Medicaid

Fraud Control Section of the OAG. Agent Carlson has served as an investigative

agent in the OAG for more than 16 years. He previously served in the Public

Corruption Unit, the Bureau of Criminal Investigations, the Bureau of Narcotics

Investigation and Drug Control, and the Organized Crime Section of the OAG.

15. Agent Carlson has been a part of high profile OAG investigations,

including “Bonusgate,” “Computergate,” the Sandusky investigation, and

investigations of complex criminal organizations, including the Philadelphia

“mob.”

16. Agent Carlson has extensive experience with document intensive

investigations, state and federal grand jury matters, confidential informants,

interviewing witnesses, and preparing investigative reports, and has prepared

countless affidavits for search and seizure warrants, criminal complaints, and

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ . 0< =,


5/30

513785965v1

wiretaps. He has conducted over 1,000 consensual recordings – “wires” – during

criminal investigations. Agent Carlson has testified in state and federal court on

numerous occasions, and has been qualified as an expert witness on the distribution

of controlled substances.

17. Among other qualifications and accolades, Agent Carlson has been an

instructor at the OAG training academy, was a member of the OAG Special

Operations Group tasked with executing high-risk search warrants and arrests, and

received a letter of commendation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation for

exceptional dedication to duty and skill in assisting with a significant federal drug

prosecution.

18. Before joining the OAG, Agent Carlson was an officer of the

Baltimore City Police Department, where he received a departmental

commendation for action taken during an in-progress aggravated domestic assault

involving a mother being beaten in front of her child.

19. Plaintiff Michael J. Cranga is a resident of Cumberland County,

Pennsylvania, and is currently employed as an investigative agent in the Bureau of

Narcotics Investigation and Drug Control of the OAG. Agent Cranga has been an

investigative agent in the OAG since 2008, and previously served in the Public

Corruption Unit and the Bureau of Criminal Investigations.

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ ( 0< =,


6/30

613785965v1

20. Agent Cranga has been an integral part of complex and high profile

OAG investigations, including the “Bonusgate,” “Computergate,” and the

Sandusky investigation.

21. Before joining the OAG, Agent Cranga served for more than five

years as an intelligence officer and polygraph examiner with the Central

Intelligence Agency and as an intelligence analyst with defense contractors.

During this time, Agent Cranga conducted polygraph examinations and counter-

intelligence and counter-terrorism operations, including deployments in Iraq,

Afghanistan, and Africa.

22. Agent Cranga previously served as a special investigator with the

Pennsylvania Office of Inspector General, where he investigated complaints of

government fraud and misconduct, and conducted background investigations.

Before that, Agent Cranga served in local law enforcement in Cumberland County

and in the United States Coast Guard.

23. Agent Cranga has over 13 years of extensive polygraph training and

experience, including graduating from the prestigious Department of Defense

Polygraph Institute. Agent Cranga currently is an instructor at the Polygraph

Institute of the National Guard Northeast Counterdrug Training Center at Fort

Indiantown Gap.

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ < 0= >,


7/30

713785965v1

24. Defendant Kathleen G. Kane is the Attorney General of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business in Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania. Ms. Kane is sued in her individual and official capacities.

25. After taking office in January 2013, Ms. Kane acknowledged Agent

Carlson and Agent Cranga’s experience and qualifications by handpicking them to

be temporarily reassigned to a high-profile theft and environmental crimes

investigation then ongoing.

26. Defendant Jonathan A. Duecker is the Chief of Staff of the OAG, with

a principal place of business in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Mr. Duecker is sued in

his individual and official capacities.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Ali Investigation

27. From 2010 to 2012, the OAG conducted an investigation into possible

political corruption involving Pennsylvania state legislators, public officials, and

related individuals. This investigation has become known as the “Ali

investigation,” based on the name of the confidential informant, Tyron Ali,

involved in the investigation.

28. As later described by the 27th County Investigating Grand Jury,

following Mr. Ali’s arrest in a separate case, it was determined that he had a wealth

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ < 0= >,


8/30

813785965v1

of information about political corruption in Philadelphia and political connections

that could be valuable to the investigation.

29. Mr. Ali voluntarily offered to become a confidential informant and

work in an undercover capacity to record conversations and meetings he had with

public officials.

30. Mr. Ali’s cover story was that he was a Philadelphia lobbyist who was

now representing larger business interests and wanted to move from local politics

to the state level.

31. The ultimate goal of the investigation was to use Mr. Ali’s local

political connections in Philadelphia to establish him as a lobbyist in Harrisburg,

working on the state level. This goal was to be achieved by placing Mr. Ali into

“the stream of political commerce” and seeing where it took him. Mr. Ali would

float various ideas or issues to his political connections and see where, and to

whom, that connection would direct him regarding that idea or issue.

32. Almost without fail, the public officials with whom Mr. Ali met – and

to whom he made cash payments – were all too willing to provide such direction

and to take official action on his behalf.

33. The OAG fitted Mr. Ali with a recording device that he consented to

wearing, and activated and deactivated that device during his meetings and

conversations. Mr. Ali ultimately recorded 113 separate meetings or conversations

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ < 0= >,


9/30

913785965v1

with various Pennsylvania state legislators, public officials, and other related

individuals.

34. Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga worked on the Ali investigation for

approximately 18 months, and were integral parts of the investigation. They

assisted in planning and carrying out the investigation, handled and debriefed the

confidential informant, reviewed and summarized hundreds of hours of recordings,

and secured and inventoried the recorded evidence.

35. During their assignment to the Ali investigation, Agent Carlson and

Agent Cranga were supervised by then-Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina,

the lead attorney for the investigation.

36. Ultimately, at least six elected officials were recorded taking cash or

other bribes.

37. The Ali investigation remained pending when Ms. Kane became

Attorney General in January 2013.

38. Despite the success of the investigation, Ms. Kane refused to pursue

the investigation further or to bring charges based on the investigation.

39. On March 16, 2014, the Philadelphia Inquirer published an article

regarding Ms. Kane’s decision to not prosecute the officials caught on tape

accepting bribes, all of whom were Democrats like Ms. Kane.

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ < 0= >,


10/30

1013785965v1

40. Ms. Kane responded by publicly claiming that the investigation had

been deeply flawed and tainted by racism, thus impugning the reputations of Agent

Carlson and Agent Cranga.

41. Believing that Mr. Fina was the source for the article, Ms. Kane

declared “war” on Mr. Fina and those she associated with him, including Agent

Carlson and Agent Cranga.

42. Ms. Kane currently faces criminal charges for releasing confidential

investigative information and secret grand jury information as part of this “war.”

Plaintiffs’ Testimony Before The Grand Jury

43. Although declining to bring charges herself based on the Ali

investigation, Ms. Kane publicly noted that the Philadelphia District Attorney’s

Office, where Mr. Fina now works, also had jurisdiction to prosecute the case.

44. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office accepted the case, and

presented the evidence developed through the Ali investigation to the 27th County

Investigating Grand Jury (“the Grand Jury”).

45. In October 2014, Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga each received a

subpoena to testify before the Grand Jury.

46. Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga informed their supervisors at the

OAG about the subpoenas.

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ &, 0< =,


11/30

1113785965v1

47. The day before they were ordered to appear at the grand jury to

testify, Agent Cranga received a phone call from Kelly Sekula, a Senior Deputy

Attorney General in the OAG. She stated that the OAG intended to move to quash

the subpoenas to Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga, so that they would not have to

testify, despite the fact that Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga wanted to testify

about the successful investigation they had helped to conduct.

48. When Agent Cranga heard nothing further from the OAG that day, he

assumed that he and Agent Carlson should proceed to the Grand Jury, as ordered

by their subpoenas.

49. Accordingly, the next day, Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga drove

together to Philadelphia.

50. During this drive, Agent Cranga received a call on his cell phone from

Ms. Sekula.

51. She stated that Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga should tell the

supervising judge of the Grand Jury that they wanted an attorney to represent them

before the Grand Jury. Ms. Sekula indicated that the OAG would pay for this

attorney.

52. If Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga had requested an attorney, this

would have delayed the proceedings and prevented them from testifying that day.

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ && 0< =,


12/30

1213785965v1

53. Ms. Sekula further stated that the OAG was still attempting to have

the subpoenas issued to Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga quashed.

54. Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga were shocked that the OAG was

attempting to prevent them from testifying about an OAG investigation that they

had worked on and which they believed had been conducted professionally and

competently – contrary to Ms. Kane’s public claims that the investigation was

flawed and tainted by racism.

55. Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga did not believe that they needed an

attorney before the Grand Jury because they had nothing to hide and had done

nothing wrong. In fact, Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga wanted to testify about

the successful investigation that they had helped to conduct.

56. In their combined two decades of experience as investigative agents

with the OAG, Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga have testified countless times

about investigations, and never before had they been told by the OAG that they

should retain an attorney before giving that testimony.

57. Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga felt that the OAG was attempting to

intimidate them into not testifying, and concerned that they would face negative

consequences at work if they did not do as they were told.

58. After Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga arrived in Philadelphia, Ms.

Sekula and Erik Olsen, a Chief Deputy Attorney General from the OAG, argued to

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ &- 0< =,


13/30

1313785965v1

the supervising judge that Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga, as well as Supervisory

Special Agent Robert Soop, who had also been subpoenaed, should not testify

before the Grand Jury.

59. Agent Soop was so upset by these events that he called First Deputy

Attorney General Bruce Beemer and told him what was occurring at the Grand

Jury. Mr. Beemer indicated that he understood Agent Soop’s concerns but stated

words to the effect of “this is coming from above me.” Mr. Beemer stated that

Agent Soop, as well as Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga, should “do what you feel

you need to do.”

60. The only person at the OAG above Mr. Beemer is Ms. Kane.

61. Although pressured by Ms. Kane to do otherwise, Agent Carlson and

Agent Cranga decided not to tell the Grand Jury supervising judge that they wanted

attorneys.

62. Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga testified before the Grand Jury

regarding the Ali investigation.

63. The questions posed to Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga addressed

whether the investigation was flawed and racist, as alleged by Ms. Kane.

64. Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga testified that the investigation was

not flawed or racially motivated, as alleged by Ms. Kane.

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ &< 0=


14/30

1413785965v1

65. Ultimately, the Grand Jury issued three presentments recommending

that charges be brought against six officials as a result of the Ali investigation.

66. In doing so, the Grand Jury expressly rejected Ms. Kane’s allegations

that the investigation was flawed or racist, finding that “each of these allegations

was empty.”

67. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, where Mr. Fina is now

employed, filed charges against these six officials.

68. One of these defendants moved to dismiss the charges on the ground

that the investigation was racist, as alleged by Ms. Kane. After this defendant’s

counsel reviewed voluminous information from the Grand Jury provided by

prosecutors, including Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga’s sworn testimony, the

defendant withdrew her motion. Defense counsel apologized for the motion and

acknowledged that after reviewing the grand jury material, he believed he would

not be able to back up the claim of racial targeting.

69. To date, of the six officials charged, four have pled guilty, one has

pled no contest, and one awaits trial.

70. On March 10, 2015, the day that the last of the charges arising from

the Ali investigation were filed, Mr. Fina emailed Agent Carlson to tell him that he

and Agent Cranga “were key” in charges being filed.

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ &. 0< =,


15/30

1513785965v1

71. Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga’s testimony before the Grand Jury

contradicted Ms. Kane’s allegations of a flawed and racist investigation –

allegations that have been proven false, and which appear to have been nothing

more than an attempt to justify Ms. Kane’s decision not to pursue the case and to

smear the reputations of Mr. Fina and those who worked with him, including

Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga.

Ms. Kane and Mr. Duecker Retaliate Against

Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga By Denying Them Promotions

72. In February 2015, Agent Carlson applied for a Special Agent III

position in the Medicaid Fraud Control Section of the OAG. This was a

supervisory position, requiring the agent to conduct complex investigations, testify

in court, and provide guidance and direction to less experienced agents.

73. In March 2015, Agent Cranga applied for a Special Agent IV position

in the Background Investigation Unit of the Human Resources Section of the

OAG. This new supervisory position was created to oversee the OAG’s polygraph

unit; supervise polygraph exams, equipment, and training; and conduct background

investigations.

74. On April 3, 2015, Agent Carlson interviewed for the Special Agent III

position.

75. On April 8, 2015, Agent Cranga interviewed for the Special Agent IV

position.

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ &( 0< =,


16/30

1613785965v1

76. On April 15, 2015, Agent Carlson was informed that there would be a

second round of interviews for the position and that he would not be part of that

process.

77. Two of the four applicants for the position moved on to the second

round of interviews, both of whom possessed substantially less experience fewer

qualifications than Agent Carlson.

78. For example, despite the fact that the Special Agent III is required to

supervise and provide guidance and direction to less experienced agents, the

individual ultimately selected for the position had been a primary case agent with

her own cases for only about six months before applying for the position. By

contrast, Agent Carlson is a 16-year veteran of the OAG with substantial

experience conducting and supervising investigations.

79. Further, despite the fact that the Special Agent III is required to

appear in court to present testimony and evidence as a prosecution witness and to

serve as the prosecuting officer at the district justice level, upon information and

belief, the individual ultimately selected for the position had testified in court only

once before. By contrast, Agent Carlson has testified in both federal and state

court on numerous occasions and been qualified as an expert witness.

80. Agent Carlson requested a list of his shortcomings which resulted in

him not even moving on to the second round of interviews, particularly given that,

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ &< 0= >,


17/30

1713785965v1

in his twenty years as a law enforcement officer, he had more experience

conducting and supervising investigations than the two applicants who moved on,

combined.

81. After a week went by without a response, Agent Carlson requested the

reasons for the denial of the promotion again.

82. Agent Carlson was then informed by his supervisor that providing a

list of the reasons that he did not move on in the interview process “is not required

or productive.”

83. On April 22, 2015, Mr. Duecker was formally promoted to Chief of

Staff. Mr. Duecker would expressly alter the OAG chain of command so that all

personnel decisions came through him to Ms. Kane. However, Mr. Duecker had

substantial influence over personnel decisions prior to his formal promotion to

Chief of Staff.

84. On April 28, 2015, Agent Cranga was informed that another candidate

had been selected for the polygraph supervisor position, despite Agent Cranga’s

extensive polygraph training and experience, and despite the fact that he had

previously reorganized the OAG polygraph unit, on a volunteer basis, in addition

to his normal duties.

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ &< 0= >,


18/30

1813785965v1

85. Agent Cranga was not provided a reason for the denial of this

promotion, but only informed that the interviewers were “impressed with [his]

experience and credentials, and that this was a very difficult decision.”

86. The individual selected for the position had far less experience and

fewer qualifications than Agent Cranga. For example, upon information and

belief, she had no experience operating polygraph equipment and, further, had

been arrested for driving under the influence during her probationary period as an

agent.

87. Further, upon information and belief, Agent Cranga was the only

applicant for the position with specific training in conducting background

investigations.

88. On April 30, 2015, it was first reported in the press that Mr. Duecker

had been promoted to Chief of Staff despite reports that he had sexually harassed a

female deputy attorney general by reaching his hand in her blouse and putting his

hand on her thigh.

89. That same day, William Nemetz, a Senior Supervisory Special Agent

entered the office where Agent Carlson works and, referring to Mr. Duecker,

stated, “Finally, they got him.” Agent Nemetz then stated, “That guy has made

every fucked up decision in this office from day one.” Pointing to Agent Carlson,

and referring to the decision to deny Agent Carlson’s promotion, Agent Nemetz

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ &< 0= >,


19/30

1913785965v1

stated, “He [Mr. Duecker] is the one who made the decision on his [Agent

Carlson’s] spot.”

90. In the following days, it was reported in the press that a second OAG

employee, a female agent, had also alleged that Mr. Duecker made unwanted

sexual advances toward her, and that days before Mr. Duecker’s promotion, a

report was sent from the OAG’s Human Resources Section to Ms. Kane,

recommending that Mr. Duecker be terminated because of these instances of

sexual harassment. Despite this report, Ms. Kane promoted Mr. Duecker to Chief

of Staff, the position he continues to hold.

91. On June 24, 2015, it was reported that Ms. Kane had terminated

George Moore, the OAG employee who had authored the report recommending

Mr. Duecker’s termination.

92. Mr. Moore had recommended that Mr. Duecker be terminated based

on Mr. Duecker’s “pattern of sexual misconduct, targeting a subordinate, and

showing an abuse of power,” which “violated the OAG’s Sexual Harassment

Policy” and “state and federal guidelines,” as well as Mr. Duecker’s “other

disturbing behavior such as the threat or actions of retaliation as a means to

intimidate employees.”

93. As the grounds for his termination, Mr. Moore reportedly was told

that Ms. Kane was “going in a different direction.”

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ &< 0= >,


20/30

2013785965v1

94. Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga later spoke to Mr. Moore about why

they had been denied promotion.

95. Mr. Moore, who had worked in Human Resources Section of the

OAG for several years, confirmed that Mr. Duecker controlled the personnel

decisions in the OAG and had done so even prior to his formal promotion to Chief

of Staff.

96. Mr. Moore stated that Ms. Kane and Mr. Duecker divided OAG

employees into two camps: friends and enemies. Promotions were based on

whether an individual was viewed by Ms. Kane and Mr. Duecker as a “team

player,” who could be easily manipulated and controlled. Those who were viewed

as enemies were placed on an unofficial “blacklist.”

97. Because of their testimony before the Grand Jury, which contradicted

Ms. Kane’s public allegations about the Ali investigation, Agent Carlson and

Agent Cranga were seen as enemies by Ms. Kane and Mr. Duecker and blacklisted.

98. Ms. Kane and Mr. Duecker denied Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga

promotions in retaliation for their testimony in support of the Ali investigation.

Ms. Kane and Mr. Duecker Retaliate Against

Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga By SelectivelyImplicating Them in a Sensationalized Email Scandal

99. In 2009, the OAG began an investigation into allegations that Jerry

Sandusky engaged in a pattern of sexual abuse of minors. That investigation

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ -, 0< =,


21/30

2113785965v1

resulted in Sandusky’s conviction on 45 counts of child sex abuse and a sentence

of 30 to 60 years’ imprisonment.

100. Agent Cranga was assigned to and played an active role in the

Sandusky investigation. Agent Carlson was also assigned to the Sandusky

investigation for a limited period.

101. During their assignment to the Sandusky investigation, Agent Carlson

and Agent Cranga were supervised by Mr. Fina, the lead attorney for the Sandusky

investigation.

102. Despite initially praising the prosecution, during her campaign for

Attorney General, Ms. Kane publicly claimed that politics had played a role in the

speed of the Sandusky investigation and vowed to investigate the Sandusky

investigation if elected. Ms. Kane’s position regarding the Sandusky investigation

was widely viewed as one of the keys to her election.

103. Shortly after taking office, Ms. Kane appointed attorney Geoffrey

Moulton to investigate the Sandusky investigation. Ultimately, Mr. Moulton

issued a report which rebutted Ms. Kane’s claim that the pace of the Sandusky

investigation was politically motivated.

104. During the course of Ms. Kane’s investigation of the Sandusky

investigation, the OAG reviewed a large volume of emails. Among those were

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ -& 0< =,


22/30

2213785965v1

personal emails, some of which contained pornographic images. Agent Carlson

and Agent Cranga were recipients of some of these emails.

105. In the summer of 2014, Agent Cranga was informed by Mr. Fina that

he had been told if he did not “knock it off” with regard to the Ali investigation,

Ms. Kane would release these emails.

106. In September 2014, Agent Cranga received a called from counsel for

the Fraternal Order of Police, the union which represents him. He was informed

that he had forwarded one email in 2009, which was a violation of the OAG’s

email policy. However, because it was a minor violation, Ms. Kane proposed

placing a temporary written reprimand in Agent Cranga’s personnel file, which

would be removed after a year or two. The union attorney told Agent Cranga that

if he chose not to fight the allegation, Ms. Kane agreed that this would be the full

extent of the discipline. Agent Cranga was not shown the email, but agreed to

accept responsibility and the temporary written reprimand.

107. Agent Carlson was not contacted by the OAG or his union regarding

the emails.

108. On November 12, 2014, the OAG issued Agent Cranga a written

reprimand. Contrary to what he had been told by the union attorney, the reprimand

stated that he had sent one email and “possessed,” that is, received, seven others.

Also contrary to what he had been told by the union attorney, the reprimand did

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ -- 0< =,


23/30

2313785965v1

not state that it was temporary. To Agent Cranga’s knowledge, the reprimand

remains in his personnel file.

109. On that same date, Ms. Kane, through her personal criminal defense

counsel, filed with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court an emergency application

seeking to quash a grand jury investigation into whether she had illegally released

confidential information from a prior grand jury in order to retaliate against Mr.

Fina and his associates.

110. Ms. Kane contended that Mr. Fina and another former OAG

prosecutor, Marc Costanzo, had manufactured the grand jury investigation in order

to prevent her from releasing offensive emails that they had sent and received

while working at the OAG.

111. Ms. Kane submitted with this filing a selection of 20 email chains and

attachments involving Mr. Fina and Mr. Costanzo. Agent Carlson and Agent

Cranga, who had worked for Mr. Fina and Mr. Costanzo during their time at the

OAG, appeared on four of these email chains.

112. Despite the fact that this filing was made in defense of Ms. Kane’s

personal criminal charges through her private criminal defense counsel, upon

information and belief, these emails were selected and retrieved by OAG

employees, including Mr. Duecker and Special Agent in Charge David Peifer,

another member of Ms. Kane’s inner circle.

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ -< 0=


24/30

2413785965v1

113. Ms. Kane chose to submit these 20 emails from the many thousands

of similar emails in her possession, which involve dozens of other recipients,

including Ms. Kane’s supporters; her sister, Chief Deputy Attorney General Ellen

Granahan; and even Ms. Kane herself.

114. Ms. Kane and Mr. Duecker selected these emails because they

implicated Mr. Fina or those Ms. Kane and Mr. Duecker associated with Mr. Fina,

including Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga.

115. Upon information and belief, Ms. Kane did so despite advice from her

own office that she could not selectively release employees’ emails.

116. Ms. Kane chose not to redact Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga’s

names from the emails, despite the fact that their identities were not relevant to her

filing and that the discipline, if any, they were to receive for the emails had already

been decided.

117. By contrast, when ultimately confronted publicly about the emails

involving her sister and herself, Ms. Kane released some of those emails, but only

after obtaining Ms. Granahan’s permission, and after redacting the names of all

others appearing on the emails.

118. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Ms. Kane’s application to

quash the grand jury investigation in her conduct.

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ -. 0< =,


25/30

2513785965v1

119. Ultimately, the grand jury recommended that charges be filed against

Ms. Kane, and the Montgomery County District Attorney brought charges against

Ms. Kane for obstructing the administration of law, official oppression, criminal

conspiracy, perjury, and false swearing. Those charges remain pending.

120. After being charged, Ms. Kane publicly claimed that the “whole

story” surrounding the charges against her “begins with pornography,” but that

court orders were purportedly preventing her from releasing these pornographic

emails. Ms. Kane called for a court order authorizing her to release the emails,

including language exempting her from civil or criminal penalties for doing so.

121. As a result of Ms. Kane’s demand, her emergency application and

the emails she had selected to submit with it were made public, though no court

order was issued protecting Ms. Kane from civil or criminal penalty as she had

hoped.

122. Ms. Kane publicly applauded the release of the emails.

123. These emails were widely reported in print, television, and electronic

media. Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga’s names were prominently displayed as

appearing on the emails.

124. This has resulted, as Ms. Kane intended, in great embarrassment for

Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga, and the denigration of their personal and

professional reputations.

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ -( 0< =,


26/30

2613785965v1

125. For example, following the release of Ms. Kane’s selected emails, a

district attorney approached Agent Carlson at a high school football game to

inquire how he was doing because “I saw your name in the paper.”

126. Agent Carlson has been greeted by coworkers with “Hey, you big

porn guy!” and told by colleagues not to email them documents so that they do not

get in trouble.

127. As another example, in the comments sections of an online media

article displaying an email he received, a commenter copied-and-pasted a link to

Agent Cranga’s LinkedIn page and called for his termination. Agent Cranga was

forced to remove his picture and contact information from the page to avoid further

harassment.

128. Agent Cranga has been told by local law enforcement officers with

whom he works that they were “shocked” to see his name in the press, and asked

by coworkers to autograph copies of the newspaper in which the emails appeared.

129. Further, during a nationally televised interview on CNN, Ms. Kane

had claimed – falsely – that the emails contained child pornography, a claim that

Ms. Kane later retracted. Ms. Kane and Mr. Duecker’s selective release of the

emails wrongly connects Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga to this malicious and

false claim.

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ -< 0= >,


27/30

2713785965v1

130. Ms. Kane and Mr. Duecker’s selective disclosure of emails was made

to retaliate against and humiliate Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga, whom they

considered enemies because of their testimony in support of the Ali investigation.

COUNT 1

VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT

131. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated

as if set forth in full.

132. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a

person’s right to freedom of speech.

133. Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga have a clearly established right to

engage in activity protected by the First Amendment free from retaliation under

color of state law.

134. Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga engaged in activity protected by the

First Amendment by testifying before the Grand Jury.

135. Ms. Kane and Mr. Duecker retaliated against Agent Carlson and

Agent Cranga by denying them promotion and selectively implicating them in a

sensationalized email scandal.

136. Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga’s testimony before the Grand Jury

was a substantial factor in Ms. Kane and Mr. Duecker’s retaliation.

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ -< 0= >,


28/30

2813785965v1

137. Ms. Kane and Mr. Duecker violated Agent Carlson and Agent

Cranga’s First Amendment rights.

138. As a direct, probable, and reasonably foreseeable result of the

deprivation of his First Amendment rights, Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga have

suffered, and continue to suffer, injury, including, but not necessarily limited to,

economic loss, physical harm, emotional and mental harm, loss of privacy, and

harm to reputation, and were required to obtain legal services to defend and clear

themselves.

139. Ms. Kane and Mr. Duecker acted maliciously and wantonly in

violating Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga’s First Amendment rights.

DEMANDFOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court

enter judgment in their favor as follows:

(a) A declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202,

declaring that Kathleen G. Kane and Jonathan A. Duecker violated the rights of

Michael A. Carlson secured by the First Amendment of the United States

Constitution;

(b) A declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202,

declaring that Kathleen G. Kane and Jonathan A. Duecker violated the rights of

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ -< 0= >,


29/30

2913785965v1

Michael J. Cranga secured by the First Amendment of the United States

Constitution;

(c) Promotion of Michael A. Carlson to the position of Special Agent III

in the Medicaid Fraud Control Section of the Office of Attorney General, with all

associated increases in wages and benefits, or, in the alternative, front pay in an

amount to be determined at trial;

(d) Promotion of Michael J. Cranga to the position of Special Agent IV in

the Human Resources Section of the Office of Attorney General, with all

associated increases in wages and benefits, or, in the alternative, front pay in an

amount to be determined at trial;

(e) An award of back pay in an amount to be determined at trial;

(f) An award of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at

trial;

(g) An award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

(h) An award of the costs of suit;

(i) An award of interest;

(j) An award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

(k) Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$ -< 0= >,


30/30

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all issues so

triable.

Respectfully submitted,

POST & SCHELL, P.C.

s/James J. Kutz

James J. Kutz (PA 21589)

Jason G. Benion (PA 307500)

17 North Second Street, 12th Floor

Harrisburg, PA 17101Phone: (717) 612-6000

Fax: (717) 731-1985

[email protected]

[email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiffs

!"#$ &'&()*+),-.(-)!!! /0*12$34 & 567$8 &-9-&9&( :";$

Documents

Kane Lawsuit