Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 30

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:
NATURE OF THE 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

Attorneys Office.

1
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 30

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

Attorneys 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. Kanes claims about the
investigation.
8.

The grand jury specifically rejected Ms. Kanes claims in

recommending that charges be filed.

2
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 3 of 30

9.

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

moved to dismiss the charges based on Ms. Kanes claims about the investigation.
When information from the grand jury, including Agent Carlson and Agent
Crangas 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. Kanes 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 AND VENUE
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
3
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 4 of 30

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
4
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 5 of 30

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.

5
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 6 of 30

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 counterintelligence 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.

6
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 7 of 30

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 Crangas 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. Alis arrest in a separate case, it was determined that he had a wealth

7
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 8 of 30

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. Alis 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. Alis 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
8
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 9 of 30

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. Kanes decision to not prosecute the officials caught on tape
accepting bribes, all of whom were Democrats like Ms. Kane.

9
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 10 of 30

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 Attorneys
Office, where Mr. Fina now works, also had jurisdiction to prosecute the case.
44.

The Philadelphia District Attorneys 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.

10
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 11 of 30

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.

11
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 12 of 30

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. Kanes 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
12
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 13 of 30

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 Soops 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.

13
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 14 of 30

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. Kanes allegations

that the investigation was flawed or racist, finding that each of these allegations
was empty.
67.

The Philadelphia District Attorneys 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 defendants
counsel reviewed voluminous information from the Grand Jury provided by
prosecutors, including Agent Carlson and Agent Crangas 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.

14
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 15 of 30

71.

Agent Carlson and Agent Crangas testimony before the Grand Jury

contradicted Ms. Kanes 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. Kanes 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 OAGs 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.
15
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 16 of 30

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,
16
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 17 of 30

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 Crangas
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.

17
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 18 of 30

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 Carlsons promotion, Agent Nemetz
18
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 19 of 30

stated, He [Mr. Duecker] is the one who made the decision on his [Agent
Carlsons] 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. Dueckers promotion, a
report was sent from the OAGs 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. Dueckers termination.
92.

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

on Mr. Dueckers pattern of sexual misconduct, targeting a subordinate, and

showing an abuse of power, which violated the OAGs Sexual Harassment
Policy and state and federal guidelines, as well as Mr. Dueckers 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.

19
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 20 of 30

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. Kanes 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 Selectively
Implicating 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

20
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 21 of 30

resulted in Sanduskys 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. Kanes 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. Kanes claim that the pace of the Sandusky
investigation was politically motivated.
104. During the course of Ms. Kanes investigation of the Sandusky
investigation, the OAG reviewed a large volume of emails. Among those were

21
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 22 of 30

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 OAGs
email policy. However, because it was a minor violation, Ms. Kane proposed
placing a temporary written reprimand in Agent Crangas 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
22
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 23 of 30

not state that it was temporary. To Agent Crangas 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. Kanes
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. Kanes inner circle.
23
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 24 of 30

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. Kanes 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 Crangas
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. Granahans permission, and after redacting the names of all
others appearing on the emails.
118. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Ms. Kanes application to
quash the grand jury investigation in her conduct.

24
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 25 of 30

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. Kanes 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 Crangas 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.
25
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 26 of 30

125. For example, following the release of Ms. Kanes 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 Crangas 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. Dueckers selective release of the
emails wrongly connects Agent Carlson and Agent Cranga to this malicious and
false claim.

26
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 27 of 30

130. Ms. Kane and Mr. Dueckers 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
persons 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 Crangas testimony before the Grand Jury
was a substantial factor in Ms. Kane and Mr. Dueckers retaliation.

27
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 28 of 30

137. Ms. Kane and Mr. Duecker violated Agent Carlson and Agent
Crangas 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 Crangas First Amendment rights.
DEMAND FOR 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

28
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 29 of 30

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

(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.

trial;

29
13785965v1

Case 1:15-cv-02452-CCC Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 30 of 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 17101
Phone: (717) 612-6000
Fax: (717) 731-1985
jkutz@postschell.com
jbenion@postschell.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs

30
13785965v1