Whitewash! Prosecutorial misconduct whitewashed by disgusting circle the wagon cronyism in the Mary Kellett case.
This is the most blatant case of prosecutorial misconduct of which I know. So egregious is this case that NCFM along with others last year filed complaints with the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar against prosecutor Mary Kellet in the Vladek Filler case.
In brief, Vladek was persecuted, prosecuted, and sentenced for a questionable misdemeanor criminal offense which came from a storm of false allegations made by his violently crazy wife who on video even threatened to kill Filler and the police! As of this typing Maine has not brought one criminal charge against her thereby compounding the injustice of Mary Kellett’s persecution of Vladek.
The Maine Board of Overseers recommended sanctions for prosecutorial misconduct. From the article below the Attorney General, Kellet’s ultimate boss, intervened on her behalf “after extensive negotiations with Bar Counsel Scott Davis, agreeing that Kellett could face a 30-day license suspension, but that the sanction itself would be suspended with a requirement that she complete six hours of training in prosecutorial ethics in addition to training she already is required to complete.”
Unbelievable! Kellet should be disbarred, period. Everyone in her chain of command up to and including the Attorney General should be sanctioned as well for allowing this incompetent, vicious, ideologically brainwashed, man-hating woman to stay employed as an Assistant District Attorney. Had roles been reversed, had she been a man and attempted to persecute a woman as Kellett did Filler, the man would have been immediately suspended, beat up by the press, and dropped like a hot rock by anyone remotely politically associated with him.
Everyone involved knows this is a debacle with serious consequences, especially hounded, hindered, and manhandled Vladek who did nothing wrong but try to protect himself and his children. This is the first time in the Maine’s history that a prosecutor has been brought before the Maine Supreme Court for misconduct. Even though Kellett admitted misconduct, it appears she will suffer only a suspended suspension; that is, suffer no significant consequences at all compared to the life altering crap she and her office piled on Vladek.
They circled the wagons– negotiated deal with no consequences, prosecutorial whitewash, disgusting by any measure, IJustice Gorman kicked Vladek to the curb and basically slapped Kellet’s hand.
Notice in the first article below that Vladek’s name is not even mentioned. The second article below from the Bangor Daily News give a more detailed history of events to include Vladek. It reveals that ADA’s defending Kellett argued that she has handled 10,000 cases and implied that one mistake should not cause her disbarment. It’s been reported elsewhere that Kellett may have persecuted other men in similar situations to Vladek. Her behavior seems to be consistent rather than unique.
It looks like it’s time to bury the victim to protect his horrific abusers, the State of Maine and its corrupt judicial system? However, my guess is that Vladek can now sue. Kellett and the state may be liable for negligence and misconduct.
Vladek’s comments at Kellett’s trial are below followed by links and articles to more about the case.
You can send Justice Gorman a letter or call her office and ask her to do the right thing. Please be polite.
Hon. Ellen A. Gorman [Biography]
Maine Supreme Judicial Court
205 Newbury Street, Room 139
Portland, Maine 04101-4125
Here’s a copy of Vladek’s presentation at Kellett’s trial:
July 15, 2013
To: Honorable Justice Ellen Gorman
In 2007 my ex-wife and I were in the midst of separation and child custody dispute. She unexpectedly moved out taking my 1 year old son and called police to take my 10 year old son from me by force. When my son refused to go live with her and police allowed him to stay, my ex-wife began making numerous accusations and threats. My 17 year old step daughter called 911 to report her mother was acting crazy and waiting to use criminal complaints against me to regain custody of my 10 year old son. My ex-wife was later apprehended by deputies and involuntarily hospitalized after running on the road barefoot, partially undressed, with child, kicking and screaming that she was going to kill me and cut me in to pieces for abusing the children. The same day those allegations were proven false. Numerous exculpatory statements were recorded by authorities but just one day later my ex-wife was interviewed at the Hancock County DA office alleging spousal rape. She was recorded admitting that this was her fight for the children and of being encouraged to cry so her spousal rape allegations would seem real to police.
The DA’s office exploited a crisis situation and rushed to solely use my ex-wife’s accusations and ignored, suppressed, and withheld exculpatory evidence that was collected, preserved, and readily available to the prosecutor. I was arrested and charged and the newspapers were alerted to publicize the allegations and attorney Kellett’s statements about seeking an indictment. All this happened within a period of only 4 days.
No matter what the evidence showed; no matter what recorded admissions my wife made at the DA office and to law enforcement; no matter what revelations were discovered; no matter what the State crime lab reports said; no matter what I, the older children, or other witnesses reported to investigators—nothing stopped prosecutor Mary Kellett from forcing this case to go forward through abuse of her position of trust and power as a State prosecutor.
All I wanted to do in 2007 was to save my children from a child abuser, but instead I found myself fighting for my life and for my children’s lives against a dishonest prosecutor who flagrantly abused my fundamental constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial.
After the first 2 years my attorney withdrew on financial grounds after exhausting all my family’s resources trying to fight attorney Kellett’s misconduct and violations. Repeatedly my attorney Daniel Pileggi made specific discovery requests, issued subpoenas, and filed motions citing attorney Kellett’s non compliance and prosecutorial misconduct. He wrote a letter to attorney Kellett stating “I have been advised by Chad Wilmot of the Ellsworth Police Department that you advised him not to comply with my subpoena in the referenced matter.” Attorney Pileggi cited criminal and ethical violations for tampering with witnesses and their compliance with valid subpoenas. Before a Bar Panel, attorney Pileggi testified to Ms. Kellett’s misconduct, suppression of evidence, misrepresentation of facts, and non production of vital court Ordered reports, recordings, and video tapes. One available and Court Ordered video tape was denied to defense by Mary Kellett and then destroyed without production. To the trial Court, attorney Pileggi wrote that prosecutor Kellett’s “violations, individually and collectively, are so pervasive and significant as to have violated [Mr. Filler’s] constitutional rights…Mr. Filler was denied due process.” Pileggi further wrote that “The Law Court has held that prosecutors are held to a higher than normal standard, both because they represent the State of Maine, and because their obligation is to secure justice and not merely a conviction. Application of that standard here demonstrates the severe violation of Mr. Filler’s rights”.
“Severe violations” of Constitution rights is how attorney Daniel Pileggi characterized prosecutor Mary Kellett’s misconduct. The trial court agreed finding attorney Kellett’s misconduct repeatedly violated the trial Court’s ruling.
My court appointed appellate attorney Neil Fishman, who has handled well over 100 high court criminal appeals in Maine, Massachusetts, and New York wrote the following to the Law Court about prosecutor Kellett’s misconduct “the prosecution [of Mr. Filler] was something akin to a Salem witch trial…the State [prosecutor] deprived defendant of his due process rights to a fair trial.” That aside from the April 6, 2007 spousal sexual assault claim, which District Court said failed to even meeting the more likely than not standard, that “all the other gross-sexual-assault charges were clearly unprovable…according to [accuser’s] own testimony it is clear that the State [prosecutor] brought these charges for no other reason than to assassinate defendant’s character…A fair trial was quite simply not to be had in such an inflamed environment. U.S. Const., Amend. V; U.S. Const., Amend. XIV. Turning to the prosecutor’s closing argument, it is so replete with misconduct, that appellate counsel urges this Court to read through it – and the prosecutor’s argument in rebuttal – in its entirety.”
After oral arguments before the Law Court, attorney Fishman wrote a 3 page letter to the Law Court citing profound misrepresentations prosecutor Mary Kellett made even to the Law Court at oral arguments concerning the trial record’s ruling and her own conduct.
My Bar complaint documented evidence of intentional suppression of truth and evidence by attorney Kellett, instructions to law enforcement not to comply with defense subpoenas for what was exculpatory evidence, and misrepresentation of vital facts to Judges, a jury, and the Law Court. Throughout the Bar Counsel’s investigation of my complaint and even during the Disciplinary Hearing attorney Kellett continued to misrepresent profound facts in the case.
A seasoned criminal and domestic violence prosecutor, George “Toby” Dilworth testified before the Bar Panel as an expert witness after reviewing the trial record and the Bar Complaint evidence. His investigation found numerous serious violations by prosecutor Kellett both at trial and pre-trial ranging from nonproduction of exculpatory evidence, to burden shifting, citing facts not in evidence and exploiting exclusion of evidence.
He testified that attorney Kellett understood what was important to defense, had a Constitutional obligation to turn it over, but did not turn over “critical” and “needed” evidence of accuser’s “exculpatory” statements and recordings to defense even after Judge Anderson specifically Ordered her to do so. Attorney Dilworth told the Panel prosecutor Kellett was “Rule 16 non compliant…[and acted to] Intentionally violate a rule of court…[and of] advising someone at [her] diretion not to comply.’’ Attorney Dilworth as an expert testified that attorney Kellett not only violated her Constitutional obligations but “intentionally” violated a rule of the court and advised others to engage in violations of the law.
The 3 member Disciplinary Panel chaired by the current Penobscot County Judge M. Ray Bradford substantiated evidence of serious and willful violation of at least 7 bar rules. The Panel’s decision specifically cites attorney Kellett’s non production of “at least two key pieces of exculpatory evidence” which were repeatedly requested in writing by defense, Court Ordered, and were “critical” and “exculpatory” in a case where my freedom was at stake. The “seriousness” of attorney Kellett’s violations, the Panel wrote, “cannot be overstated”. Attorney Kellett told the panel she would do nothing differently in the future and that she had a philosophical disagreement with the Trial Court’s rulings and the Law Court’s decision regarding her misconduct. The Panel concluded that “it appear likely that Ms. Kellett would repeat this unfairly prejudicial conduct.”
Despite all the evidence and findings substantiating attorney Kellett’s misconduct she continues to maintain her actions were neither willful nor were violations of my constitutional rights.
The Bar Counsel, in the complaint filed with this Court, repeatedly refers to attorney Kellett’s misconduct as “inexcusable.”
I am respectfully pleading with this Court to hold attorney Kellett fully responsible for her willful and “inexcusable” misconduct and violation of my constitutional rights. I am pleading with this Court to hold prosecutor Kellett to the required higher legal and ethical standards which all prosecutors in Maine are required to abide by.
The Bar Panel’s findings and recommendation warrants this Court’s use of its authority and knowledge of the criminal rules of conduct to take further needed measures to remove attorney Kellett’s license to practice law.
Attorney Kellett was fully aware of Bar Rule 3.83 which requires much higher responsibility and obligations from prosecutors due to their special roles, power, and privileges. Attorney Kellett intentionally engaged in misconduct undermining the administration of justice and my constitutional rights. She must be held to the required higher standards to protect the public and the justice system. Absent disbarment for her “inexcusable” and prolific misconduct, the standards for all prosecutor’s in Maine will effectively be lowered and a detrimental message will be sent throughout the legal and law enforcement community in Maine which will affect countless lives.
I have been fighting for 6 years and have risked my freedom and that of my children so attorney Kellett is held fully accountable and so many others are not subjected to such abuse and irreparable harm to their lives as my family and I have. The laws and standards of conduct need to be upheld and enforced in this case by way of attorney Kellett’s disbarment. The Court must not allow unjust abuse and human suffering to be valued below any attorney’s responsibility or license to continue practicing law. Several witnesses risked their careers to testify against Mary Kellett at the disciplinary hearing. The Disciplinary Panel’s decision is unprecedented and was not made lightly. Attorney Kellett’s misconduct has touched many lives. 1566 people have signed an advocacy group’s petition for her disbarment with the hopes that she is held fully accountable for her violation of our system of justice and our values and beliefs.
Attorney’s are routinely disbarred for mere financial misconduct, but no professional misconduct is more egregious than an attorney who resorts to violations, deception and suppression of exculpatory evidence to send an innocent human being to prison and flagrantly justify it with personal philosophical disagreement with the rules.
The Bar Panel found that prosecutor Kellett engaged in conduct unworthy of an attorney.
The best interests of justice in this case require attorney Mary Kellett’s disbarment until such time This Court may find it appropriate to reinstate her license to practice law.
I am pleading with this Court for justice. My life, my irreparable suffering, and that of my 2 children over the past 6 years must mean more in our society than one abusive attorney’s license.
I thank Your Honor and submit this statement, a copy of my 3 part Bar Complaint, and a petition signed by 1566 individuals.
 Vladek Filler’s Bar Complaint Exhibit #3
 Attached copy of Dec. 10, 2012 Disciplinary Panel Decision
By Scott Dolan email@example.com
PORTLAND — A Hancock County prosecutor admitted to violating the rules of conduct for attorneys at a disciplinary hearing on Monday in Cumberland County Superior Court.
Hancock County Assistant District Attorney Mary Kellett’s admission stems from her actions prosecuting a former Gouldsboro man in 2008 and 2009.
Kellett made the admission after the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar filed a complaint against her earlier this year seeking her suspension, the first such complaint in the state against a prosecutor.
Lawyers for Kellett and the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar reached a disciplinary agreement before the hearing began in front of a Supreme Judicial Court judge. Under the agreement, Kellett could face a license suspension in the future but can continue to practice law now with additional training.
Justice Ellen Gorman said she intended to impose the recommendation by the end of the week after she had a chance to better review it and make corrections.
“This is the first time any information charging a prosecutor with misconduct has been brought before a single justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court,” said Assistant Attorney General William Fisher, who represented Kellett in the complaint against her. “It’s very serious.”
Fisher said the Attorney General’s Office reached a recommended disposition after extensive negotiations with Bar Counsel Scott Davis, agreeing that Kellett could face a 30-day license suspension, but that the sanction itself would be suspended with a requirement that she complete six hours of training in prosecutorial ethics in addition to training she already is required to complete.
By Bill Trotter, BDN Staff
Posted July 15, 2013, at 1:17 p.m.
PORTLAND, Maine — A prosecutor from Hancock County admitted Monday morning to a state supreme court justice that she violated rules of the Maine Bar when she prosecuted a former Gouldsboro man on gross sexual assault and misdemeanor assault charges.
Mary Kellett, assistant district attorney for Hancock County, appeared Monday before Justice Ellen Gorman after the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar recommended late last year that she be suspended. A board grievance panel met in Bangor last fall to consider a misconduct complaint filed against Kellett by Vladek Filler and determined that Kellett had violated seven bar rules in handling Filler’s assault case. The board’s recommendation that Kellett be suspended is the only such recommendation that board staff can recall for a prosecutor in Maine, according to Jacqueline Rogers, executive director of the board.
Gorman was expected on Monday to review arguments in the misconduct complaint and then to determine whether Kellett actually had violated rules that govern the conduct of licensed attorneys in Maine. Instead, the assistant attorneys general representing Kellett and J. Scott Davis, counsel for the bar, each told Gorman they had reached an accord by which Kellett would admit to violating bar rules and accept a suspension of her law license.
During the board hearing last fall, Kellett denied that she violated any bar rules. On Monday, however, Kellett acknowledged that she made inappropriate statements during her closing arguments at Filler’s first trial, in January 2009, and that she suppressed and failed to disclose evidence that Filler sought for his legal defense leading up to that trial. Kellett said the violations were mistakes and were not intended to deprive Filler of a fair trial.
“I want to acknowledge that I made errors in the prosecution of the Filler case,” Kellett told the judge in brief remarks. “I regret the harm that my errors caused.”
Filler was accused of physically assaulting his then-wife in December 2005, of raping her in April 2007, and then of assaulting her again a few days later, all at the Gouldsboro home they shared at the time. He was convicted at his first trial, in January 2009, of raping and assaulting his wife. After a retrial was ordered, he was acquitted in May 2011 of gross sexual assault and of one misdemeanor assault but was convicted of the second misdemeanor assault charge.
Filler’s second trial was prosecuted by Paul Cavanaugh, another prosecutor who works for Carletta “Dee” Bassano, district attorney for Hancock and Washington counties. Filler served 21 days in jail for the misdemeanor assault conviction.
Filler consistently has maintained that his now-former wife made up the allegations because their marriage was deteriorating and she was seeking an advantage in an expected custody dispute over their two young sons. Filler, who now lives in suburban Atlanta, won custody of the boys in his subsequent divorce from his wife.
In a Dec. 5, 2012, report in which it recommended that Kellett be suspended, a Board of Overseers grievance panel wrote that it was concerned by two aspects of Kellett’s conduct in prosecuting Filler.
The first was Kellett’s comment during her closing arguments that there was no evidence that the allegations against Filler were part of a custody dispute over their children between Filler and his wife. The defense wanted to introduce such testimony in the January 2009 trial, but Kellett successfully argued before testimony began that any such testimony should not be allowed because it would confuse the jury. Justice Kevin Cuddy, the trial judge, did not allow the testimony to be introduced, but still Kellett brought it up to the jury in her closing arguments.
Following the trial, Cuddy and the Law Court separately determined that Kellett’s comments during her closing were unfairly prejudicial against Filler, the panel indicated.
The panel also was concerned over Kellett’s failure to produce and turn over prior to the January 2009 trial “at least two pieces of exculpatory evidence” to Daniel Pileggi of Ellsworth, who was Filler’s defense attorney at the time. One was a copy of a 911 call about Filler’s wife behaving strangely, which led to police being told of the supposed rape, and the other piece involved statements that Filler and his wife provided to Ellsworth police about an unrelated incident five days after the rape supposedly had occurred.
Pileggi sought both pieces of evidence to use as examples of Filler’s wife’s state of mind before and at the time the rape allegations were reported to police.
After last fall’s grievance hearing, the panel determined that Kellett violated bar rules by:
• Engaging in conduct unworthy of an attorney.
• Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
• Failing to employ reasonable skill and care.
• Failing to make timely disclosure of the existence of evidence that tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the degree of the offense or reduce the punishment.
• Suppressing evidence that she had a legal obligation to produce.
• Assisting the state to violate the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure and the court’s order.
• Employing means that were inconsistent with truth and seeking to mislead the jury.
After Monday’s short hearing, Kellett and Bassano left the courtroom through an alternate entrance without speaking to reporters. Attempts Monday afternoon to contact them were unsuccessful. Kellett and Bassano consistently have declined to publicly comment on Filler’s misconduct complaint.
Filler told Gorman Monday that he thinks Kellett should be permanently disbarred. He said the charges against him had irreparably harmed him and his two young sons. Kellett’s mishandling of his case, he said, was an “abuse of power” that he described as willful, inexcusable and prolific.
“This is about intentional misconduct,” Filler told Gorman. “I have been fighting [this] for six years. I am pleading with this court for justice.”
Gorman told Filler that Kellett’s violations were a first offense and that she did not intend to disbar the prosecutor. The judge did say that suspension was a significant punishment that would have a lasting effect.
“It is a sanction that would continue to follow Ms. Kellett for the rest of her life,” Gorman said. “It is not a light sanction to impose.”
Gorman also offered Filler an apology on behalf of the state’s criminal justice system.
“You did not receive a fair first trial,” the judge said.
Following the hearing, Filler told reporters in a courthouse hallway that he was disappointed Gorman would not consider disbarring Kellett. He said he did not think his second trial was fair either, though Gorman said it was.
“This was not about punishment [for Kellett],” Filler said. “I have an interest in making sure that other people are not subjected to such destructive [prosecutorial] abuse.”
He declined to indicate whether he accepted Gorman’s apology, saying that accepting it is difficult to do considering how he and his sons were affected by the criminal charges and subsequent trials.
William Fisher, one of two assistant attorneys general who represented Kellett throughout the grievance process, said after Monday’s hearing that in 10 years, Kellett has handled 10,000 criminal cases. That amount is not abnormal, he said, but still amounts to a “very high” volume of cases. There are financial constraints on Maine’s criminal justice system, as there are throughout state government, he said, which has resulted in some Cumberland County prosecutors handling as many as 3,000 or 4,000 a year.
Fisher said one mishandled case should be considered an aberration for Kellett, not the norm.
“Ms. Kellett has suffered and learned from these proceedings,” Fisher said. “I believe she is going to be a better prosecutor.”
As part of Kellett’s admission, Fisher said, prosecutors in Bassano’s office will work with the Office of the Attorney General to establish systems by which they can keep better track of what types of evidence police departments have and do not have in each criminal case that Bassano’s office is prosecuting. The attorney general’s office also is working with Bassano’s office to review proper procedures for preparing for trial and for conducting trials, he said.
Gorman said she would review the agreement between Kellett and the Board of Overseers, which calls for a 30-day suspension, and that she planned to suspend the prosecutor but that the suspension itself would be suspended, meaning that Kellett will be able to continue to practice law unless new misconduct issues arise, at which point the suspension could go into effect.
Gorman said she expected to issue her final decision sometime later this week.