Filler's sister speaks to the Bar Panel

Dear Grievance Panel,
Vladek Filler is my brother and he is a good, honest, and caring man who fought to protect his sons.  He lived through domestic abuse, 5 ½ years of prosecutorial abuse, legal black mail, fraudulent convictions and false 21 day imprisonment. His reputation and good name has been ruined by criminal misconduct of prosecutor Mary Kellett.
I attended Mary Kellett’s October 22-23 2012 disciplinary hearing and paid close attention to the testimony and the evidence in the case.  I am writing to you because I am very concerned that attorney Kellett’s serious and malicious misconduct, as alleged and painstakingly documented in Vladek Filler’s 3 part Bar Complaint, has been omitted and even covered up from open discussion.
I urge this Grievance Commission to review Vladek Filler’s entire 3 part Complaint with exhibits and consider the evidence of misconduct that has been admitted in to evidence by the Panel but not adequately addressed or argued.  This admitted evidence must be given full weight to protect the public from Kellett’s practice as a lawyer and a prosecutor.  Given the available evidence of very serious misconduct a recommendation for mere reprimand or suspension would be grossly inadequate in protecting the administration of justice.
Many discovery records in Vladek’s case which were denied, delayed, and withheld by Mary Kellett show that her office was fully aware from the beginning that Ligia Filler made numerous exculpatory admissions, even on recordings made at the DA office, that numerous felony rape charges brought by Kellett were unjustifiable making them “unprovable[i]”.
Kellett went forward with multiple felony indictments while concealing and misrepresenting crucial evidence and admissions before the Grand Jury and numerous Judges to prosecute an innocent man.  Even after the Law Court ruled against Kellett and after the Divorce Court ruled that evidence of spousal rape could not achieve preponderance given evidence to the contrary, Kellett still announced she would retry the case to meet a beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
The record of malicious misconduct and misrepresentation in light of incredible exculpatory evidence was detailed in Vladek’s 3 part Bar Complaint and its exhibits which I strongly urge this Grievance Panel to carefully review and consider before condemning any more innocent people in Maine to such prosecutorial abuse.
At the disciplinary hearing, former Federal prosecutor George “Toby” Dilworth testified that he reviewed the trial record and found Kellett misled the jury, violated Judge Cuddy’s Ruling, presented her own testimony and allegations not in evidence, and shifted the burden of proof on defense.
Dilworth testified “[Kellett] objected to the evidence of [the child custody dispute] and then used it at closing… She excluded it and now was using it as a sword.” Dilworth then detailed what appears to be criminal misconduct by Mary Kellett of being fully aware of the importance of the police evidence she withheld which was “critical to defense”.  He stated “[this was] exculpatory information-statement of the victim of the rape.. this material must be turned over…even if the judge did not order Ellsworth American records this material should have been turned over [by Kellett].”
Defense attorney Daniel Pileggi testified “I was surprised that prosecutor in this case intervened [to order Officer Wilmot not to provide his report and Ligia Filler’s statement]. I was frustrated, this was recoverable, it is clearly discoverable, and this information was directly related to the defense case. I did not understand why it was not provided.” This was exculpatory evidence Kellett withheld to this day despite Pileggi specifically requesting Ligia Filler’s statement[ii], despite Wilmot’s report explicitly stating witness statements were collected and scanned, and despite Judge Anderson Ordering Kellett to turn this and other specifically requested material over to defense.
Kellett’s claim to the panel that defense never request Ligia Filler’s written statements was clearly false, as Daniel Pileggi’s September 6, 2007 written request, subsequent requests, Motion for Discovery, and subpoena indicate.  Kellett further claims that she instructed Officer Wilmot to withhold these subpoenaed exculpatory records from defense because she asserted it was her responsibility as a prosecutor to invoke a privilege on behalf of a private citizen, Ellsworth American’s editor Stephen Fay, out of concern for his privacy.
At the February 15, 2008 hearing, as detailed in the Bar Complaint, Kellett also objected to, and asserted a privilege over release of Ligia Filler’s exculpatory medical examination records even against Ligia Filler’s own attempts to release those records (which yet another withheld discovery video tape later revealed[iii]).  Kellett blocked medical records from release then proceeded to selectively use them to misrepresent her conduct and those records to Judge Cuddy and to the jury at trial.  There appears to be a pattern of misconduct to suppress and misrepresent exculpatory evidence in order to punish an innocent man.  Is evidence of such prosecutorial misconduct only worthy of a “reprimand”?
Former prosecutor George Toby Dilworth reviewed the trial transcript and the case record and testified that “[Prosecutor Mary Kellett was] Rule 16 non compliant. [Kellett acted to] ‘Intentionally violate a rule of court.’…Bar Rule 3.6d…‘advising someone at your direction not to comply.’…Bar Rules 3.7 criminology statistics…Bar Rules 3.2f4 and 3.1a are the real problems…Bar Rule 3.7e shifting burden…exclusion of evidence at closing is just as harmful to defendant and it’s the last thing jury is hearing…Bar Rules 3.2f4, 3.2f7i…Facts are not in evidence Bar Rules 3.2f4 and 3.2.”  Attorney Dilworth’s testimony suggested that Mary Kellett engaged in intentional misconduct and violation of Court’s ruling.
As with Ellsworth Police Officer Chad Wilmot, Kellett discussed with Gouldsboro Sergeant James Malloy, the specific police reports he was subpoenaed to produce to defense. In her response to the Bar Counsel she admitted to advising Malloy that he was not obligated to turn what was clearly discoverable records over to defense despite Malloy voluntarily offering to fax these records over to defense (per admitted April 2009 audio recording of Sgt. Malloy).  Here Kellett, who was herself legally obligated to turn these same April 24, 2007 discovery reports over to defense was advising Sgt. James Malloy against providing these subpoenaed records to defense unless the Court compelled him to do so.
Attorney Daniel Pileggi repeatedly requested discovery from Kellett in writing and after 1 1/2 years and a Court Order, Kellett still refused to provide numerous records including Ligia Filler’s recorded exculpatory statements made in 911 calls and video on April 24, 2007.  In fact, Deputy Travis Willey clearly testified he had this video, previewed it, apparently possessed it even after trial and in the audio recorded phone conversation in May 2009 (5 months after trial) admitted that no one ordered him to produce anything to defense and that he could not comply with defense subpoenas without Kellett’s permission.
Dan Pileggi testified that he eventually learned this court ordered video tape was destroyed which only happens when the prosecutor specifically does not instruct police to produce it.  He further testified that he was never provided and never heard before the played 911 recordings of Ligia Filler which he would have used at trial.  Pileggi requested these recordings as they should have been part of automatic discovery.
Judge Anderson even issued an Order for Mary Kellett to provide all these April 24, 2007 recordings of Ligia Filler but Kellett never provided these vital recordings which contained stunning admissions.  The 911 recording obtained by Vladek after trial clearly showed Ligia Filler was willing to say just about anything to get police to help her regain custody of her son.
The 911 recordings featured Mrs. Filler’s own grown daughter from another relationship admitting that she told her mother she was “crazy”, that her mother failed to get custody of her brother because he wished to live with his father but that she was “waiting” to get his custody anyway by using criminal charges against his father.  Expert witness attorney Dilworth testified “I find [the 911 audio tape] to be very important…All prosecutors save 911 tapes in domestic violence cases…[Vladek Filler’s attorney] Daniel Pileggi certainly needed this [911 tape] for his defense.”
If misrepresenting the facts and evidence, violating discovery rules, ordering police to withhold subpoenaed exculpatory evidence from defense, and violating a Court Order, are not prosecutorial crimes against an innocent man, then what is?
Does such misconduct only warrant a reprimand? 
Is the prosecutorial assault on Vladek and his two son’s liberty and reputation not worth prosecutor Mary Kellett’s law license?  Given the evidence cited in the Bar Complaint there are apparently dozens, if not more, victims of Mary Kellett’s misconduct.  Allowing Kellett to continue her law practice in light of available evidence of her intentional misconduct is in itself unethical abuse of her victims and the administration of justice.
According to Mary Kellett’s own testimony before this Grievance Panel, she continues to maintain she did nothing wrong and if given a chance would do nothing differently in the future.  Based on her own statements, would reprimand or suspension change her beliefs or her future conduct?
In June of 2012, while awaiting the scheduling of her own disciplinary hearing, Kellett prosecuted two more innocent men for sexual crimes[iv].  One of the prosecuted men was yet another father who was winning a custody dispute with his wife but was unjustifiably prosecuted for sexual misconduct.  Kellett’s prosecution had a direct effect on his divorce hearing.
Asked by the Bangor Daily News, Kellett stated that so long as she and her office believe the accuser then her office is obligated to prosecute the accused in order to address the complaints.  Is that not an admission of ideology based misconduct and a violation of evidentiary threshold required by the Bar Rules for criminal prosecutions?
Mary Kellett continued to conduct and promote such prosecutions irrespective of the strength or weakness of the evidence or of her own pending disciplinary hearing.
Defense attorney Daniel Pileggi, based on his personal knowledge of Kellett’s interference in the Fillers’ DHHS child protection case, Guardian Ad Litem’s investigation, and misrepresentation of evidence, as detailed in the admitted Bar Complaint, made a very profound statements on the admitted trial record that “the district attorney [Mary Kellett…] has taken sides in a custody dispute.  [The State of Maine with all its power and authority represented by Mary Kellett] has ignored a doctor’s testimony, the only doctor that we have.  [The State represented by Kellett] has ignored a series of interviews with Ligia Filler in April 2007 that rose to the crescendo of child abuse – child abuse[!]” (Trial Transcript Page 458).  Dan Pileggi openly suggested Mary Kellett abused her State prosecutorial power, ignored evidence of truth and of accuser’s own exculpatory admissions, in favor of helping a female child abuser regain child custody from an innocent man.
Based on such evidence it appears prosecutor Mary Kellett willfully, despite medical evidence, DHHS and GAL findings, and accuser’s own taped admissions brought false class A felony rape charges and withheld evidence of innocence to send an innocent man to prison in order to send his children to their child abusive mother.
Does a reprimand or a suspension hold Kellett to those higher standards given the nature and evidence of misconduct?  The only just and ethical remedy is a recommendation for attorney Mary Kellett’s disbarment.  The Law Court will be required to review the evidence and make a final decision, but to allow Kellett to only be reprimanded given the admitted and available evidence would be unjust, unethical, and a failure of the Board’s responsibility to protect the public.
According to a recent Center for Public integrity non partisan report,Maine is named the number 5 most corrupt state for failing to hold its public officials to ethical standards.  As a prosecutor granted extraordinary power over people’s lives, Mary Kellett is required by rules to be held to higher standards than private attorneys.
In July of 2012 the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar reprimanded Machias attorney Jeffrey Davidson for making an inappropriate rape joke to a female police officer.  The Board found that his use of the “word ‘rape’ in this setting was unsettling to [his acquaintance Lt. Mary Zidalis] as well as unprofessional and prejudicial to the administration of justice”[v].  If the use of the word “rape” in a joke was found to be prejudicial to administration of justice warranting a lawyers reprimand, then what is the appropriate penalty for prosecuting someone for 5 false counts of rape after withholding evidence of their innocence?
After advising numerous police officers to withhold subpoenaed evidence and refusing to comply with a court order for clearly relevant and exculpatory evidence?  How does Mary Kellett’s intentionally misleading, false, and deceptive statements to judges, the jury, and to the Law Court compare to other attorney’s misconduct and prejudice to the administration of justice?  How does prosecutor Mary Kellett’s “disingenuous”[vi] and unapologetic stance before the Board of Overseers of the Bar reconcile her misconduct in seeking to punish an innocent man with up to 152 years in prison?
This kind of abuse of power and of citizens is the reason prosecutors like Mary Kellett must be held to higher standards as the law and ethics rules stipulate and demand the Grievance Panel to do.  Laws, ethics codes, and the US Constitution are there to protect people’s Rights and now this Grievance Panel has the duty and responsibility to stand up for those laws, those codes of conduct, and for our Constitution by recommending nothing less than attorney Mary Kellett’s disbarment.
Above all other duties, the Bar Rules and Grievance Process are intended to protect the lives and rights of people from irreparable harm caused by the kind of misconduct of which attorney Mary Kellett is accused.  No attorney is more worthy of disbarment than the one which maliciously betrays evidence of truth and violates rules to deprive people of their liberty, reputation, and Constitutional Rights.
The available evidence and testimony demonstrates that Mary Kellett knowingly and maliciously violated rules for her own philosophical and ideological reasons.  That is what has been presented by Vladek Filler’s complaint, supported by his testimony, and the testimony of former Federal Prosecutor George T. Dilworth, and defense attorney Daniel Pileggi.
I urge this Grievance Panel to step up to its ethical responsibility and do right by the people of Maine, by Vladek Filler, by his family, and by all the Maine prosecutors and attorneys who are now looking to the Board of Overseers of the Bar to unconditionally honor and enforce the same rules and codes of conduct which they are required to abide by.