Date: 5/18/07
GRIEVANCE ON ANTHONY JORDAN MAROTTA
FROM: SISTER KERI M. BURNOR
PAGES:
7
INFORMATION ABOUT ATTORNEY
1. ATTORNEY'S NAME: Anthony Jordan MarottaATTORNEY'S ADDRESS: 332 Main Street 7th Floor Worcester, MA 01609
2. TELEPHONE NUMBER (WORK)508-792-0214 (OTHER)508-755-8601
3.
HAVE YOU OR ANOTHER FAMILY MEMBER COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS ATTORNEY PREVIOUSLY? No
4. DID YOU HIRE THIS ATTORNEY OR WAS THIS ATTORNEY COURT APPOINTED TO REPRESENT YOU?
Court appointed; Father Peter Joyce called the DA's Office to make this complaint on April 30TH 2002.
5. No signed contract
6.
No fee arrangement
7.
No reason to believe attorney had a drug alcohol or mental health problem.
INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GRIEVANCE
1. WHERE DID THE ACTIVITY
YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT OCCURR?
COUNTY:
Worcester CITY: East Brookfield District Court, 544 East Main Street
2. IF YOUR GRIEVANCE IS
ABOUT A LAWSUIT ANSWER THE FOLLOWING, IF KNOWN:
A. NAME OF COURT: East Brookfield District Court,
Western Worcester District
B. TITLE OF THE SUIT: Commonwealth VS Joseph Chu-Cong
C. CASE NUMBER AND DATE SUIT WAS FILED: Docket No. 0269CR001118 March 13, 2003
D. IF YOU ARE NOT PARTY TO THIS SUIT WHAT IS YOUR CONNECTION WITH IT? EXPLAIN BRIEFLY: I was
a witness for the Commonwealth
______________________________________________________________________________________
IF YOU HAVE COPIES OF COURT DOCUMENTS PLEASE ATTACH.
2. EXPLAIN IN DETAIL WHY YOU THINK THIS ATTORNEY HAS DONE SOMETHING IMPROPER OR, HAS FAILED TO DO SOMETHING WHICH
SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS OF PAPER IF NECESSARY.
IF YOU HAVE COPIES OF LETTERS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS YOU BELIEVE ARE RELEVANT TO YOUR GRIEVANCE
, PLEASE ATTACH. DO NOT SEND ORIGINALS.
INCLUDE
THE NAMES. ADDRESSES AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF ALL PERSONS WHO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR GRIEVANCE
ALSO, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT A COPY OF YOUR GRIEVANCE MAY BE FORWARDED
TO THE ATTORNEY NAMED IN YOUR GRIEVANCE.
Please see attached
COMPLAINT TO STATE BAR OF MASSACHUSETTS
ANTHONY
J. MAROTTA
May 18th 2007
REASON FOR GRIEVANCE
This grievance is going to provide evidence that the Commonwealth failed to prosecute the case Commonwealth vs Joseph Chu-Cong
according to the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment by which the States are bound. I will also demonstrate
that my rights as a witness for the Commonwealth were violated under MGL Chapter 258B.
Although prosecutorial misconduct is more common regarding improper argument and aggressiveness on the part of the prosecutor,
in this case, the misconduct goes the other way in the direction of gross negligence. While supposedly representing the Commonwealth,
it is my objective to prove Mr. Marotta was overly concerned and "cooperative" with the defense and not focused
with prosecuting the case to the full extent of the law.
It was the following that has caused the Commonwealth's Assistant District Attorney to fail in representing this case:
PART 1: INCOMPETENCE (RULE 1.1)
Mr. Marotta expressed
to me he had never taken on an adult sex abuse case. He was surprised taking my case as he was not typically assigned to the
Western Worcester District cases.
Mr. Marotta, not seeing the importance of establishing my credibility as a candidate for hermit status of the Diocese of Worcester,
failed to prepare me to substantiate and verify this status. It was I who produced documents on March 13, 2003 the day of
trial that defended my status.
On page 21 in the Court Transcripts (See tabbed pages in Court Transcript transcribed by Catherine LaBonte) it is clear to
see Mr. Moratta did not have a clear understanding of what my status was. He refers to me as a "professed nun" and
this is not accurate to those with Ecclesiastical sensibility. He made attempts understanding the nature of the life I was
pursuing, but he was unable to accurately represent my official position.
Pages 24 and 51 of the transcripts indicate a poor ability and effort communicating to the jury the way I was initially abused
by Father Cong. The legal term for what I experienced here is "frotage", where the offender rubs his chest on the
breasts of the victim usually in the context of a hug. If Mr. Marotta had experience in sex abuse cases he would have known
how to help me communicate this to the jury.
On page 77 of the transcripts the defense attorney, Mr. McEvilly, refers to a private conversation he had on the phone with
my friend Br. Alphonsus-Maria MacGovern. Mr. Marotta did not object.
In the transcripts on page 135, Fr. Isaac refers to Grace's letter. Mr. Moratta had ample opportunity to defend me by presenting
Abbot Damian's letter as a response to Grace Haggerty's letter. Mr. Marotta demonstrated unfamiliarity with the documents
I submitted for the court file. (See Exhibits A & B part of enclosed court documents)
I was unaware of my rights to discharge Mr. Marotta and request other representation.
PART
2: NEUTRALITY (RULE 2.4)
The morning of the trial when we were negotiating a possible agreement with the defense, Mr. Marotta failed to mention the
Motion filed by Mr. McEvilly. (See Exhibit C, Motion Pursuant to Chapters 276, 87) for Chu-Cong to go on probation as
part of an agreement to prevent us from going to trial. Mr. Marotta only mentioned to me that Fr. Cong was willing to merely
apologize and not admit. (This is a violation of Chapter 258B Section 3 "no prompt disposition") Reverend Peter
Joyce and Kristi Seymour were present and can affirm that they both do not recall any reference to the word "probation"
as part of the agreement the defense put forth. (See Affidavits /Exhibits E&F)
Previously Mr. Marotta showed me Fr. Isaac's testimony in State Detective Ryan's police report. Fr. Isaac's testimony showed
indication of Father Cong admitting he assaulted another woman over a decade ago. Mr. Marotta told me he was not supposed
to show me this document. He said he showed it to me to "piss me off" so that I "would not give up on the case
no matter what". I asked why this admission would be in the police report and he said because the statutes are up for
the other victim and that with me "the abbey is threatened so they are going to make me out to be a liar." (See
Exhibit D, Father Isaac's testimony page 3 of Police Report)
Mr. Marotta failed to summons both Fresh Complaint Witnesses. He decided that Brother Philippe's testimony would be useless
because he felt he would have lied on the stand. Since I was on retreat at the Abbey the day of the assault, I told Brother
Philippe Makram (See Brother Philippe Makram's Statement to Tpr. Heather DiPasquale on 7/12/02), and the following day Brother
Patrick McHale (disclosed still within the 24 hour time period). Brother Patrick was questioned during the internal
investigation the Abbey conducted yet was overlooked by the DA'a office as being a viable witness?
PART 3: REASONABLY INFORMED: COMMUNICATION (RULE 1.4)
As I mentioned
in the above text, I was unaware of any motion submitted or any possible agreements having anything to do with Father Cong
going on probation in order to prevent going to trial UNTIL AFTER I gave my testimony for approximately 2 hours on the stand.
Mr. Marotta showed me this motion hand-written on a shabby piece of notebook paper, thus giving me the impression it was just
written. Mr. Marotta and those present previously heard me say: "If I am forced to go through with the trial all agreements
and possibility of agreements are off!" If I were given full disclosure of the motion filed prior to the decision to
go to trial, this could have caused a different response and outcome and could have prohibited me from going through with
the trial.
I was unaware, but this motion was presented to Judge Losapio before there was a decision to go to trial.
(See
Exhibits E & F, attached affidavits)
Also of note, Mr. Marotta and I only had an equivalent of 2 meetings before the trial totaling at most 3 hours. The times
of these meetings are: 6/02 (332 Main Street, Worcester) 3/12/03: 2pm (East Brookfield Courthouse)
I did not sense he listened well. I did not see a demonstration of having sufficient knowledge representing this case. I felt
I had to blindly trust him. When I was concerned about his competence I would write letters to him clarifying issues I felt
he needed to know about. (See Exhibits G & H, enclosed letters)
I also asked my psychologist to write a letter supporting my mental health status because I felt I was going to be construed
as unstable. (See Exhibit I, letter faxed to Attorney Marotta from Howard Mathisen D.Min.,FAACS)
When Mr. Marotta received
the letter by fax he gave it back to me and said he never read it and he told me not to give him anything unless he asked
for it first. (Hence, the reason I did not give him the letters regarding my status and the Diocese.) I felt that letter could
have spared me being labeled mentally and emotionally marginal. (See Exhibits J & K Newspaper articles enclosed)
On Page 118 Mr. Marotta did not object when Fr. Isaac referred to me as being mentally or emotionally marginal. Fr. Isaac
is not an expert witness and is not competent to make such assessments pertaining to me in the mental health and behavioral
sciences. Further, Mr. Marotta supported his claim by referring to Fr. Isaac's statement a few times. (See transcripts pages
133, and 157.
In terms of Disclosure, I was never notified as to how the Defense came to know I went to South Carolina. If there were an
investigator assigned to this case it should have been introduced to the record. (See page 74 in transcripts.)
If Mr. Marotta demonstrated
a fair knowledge of the letters submitted for the court file (per Detective Ryan) it would have been in my best interest to
have Father Raphael Simon's (who was a renowned psychologist) letter introduced into evidence. This letter clearly defines
the spiritual integrity of my devotion to "the wall". See newspapers to see what happened as a result. (Also, see
Exhibit L, Father Raphael's letter of April 12, 2000.)
There was no objection to improper argument (see transcripts page 152) which caused both prosecutor and defense counsel to
make a number of subjective assessments concerning the potential prejudice which might have resulted from the poor argumentation
itself.
Mr. Marotta failed to see to it that I was reasonably informed in court procedure. (See page 94 in transcripts.) I did not
know the difference between arraignment and complaint procedure. This was crucial in asserting my position that I was never
asked to leave the Abbey premises until the criminal complaint was lodged.
PART
4: CONFLICT OF INTEREST (RULE 1.7)
Fr. Isaac (see page 136 of transcripts) offers to submit a letter into evidence written by the Judicial Vicar for the Diocese
of Worcester (who at that time was Monsignor Pedone). This letter was supposed to state I had no official status in the Diocese.
Failure to request and submit this document is indicative that the District Attorney's Office did not want adverse publicity
drawn to the Diocese. It would be clear that if this letter were submitted that the Diocesan office would be open to public
humiliation as the document would show the incongruity of the communications between officials within the Diocesan Office.
Imagine a letter from the Canon Lawyer of the Diocese being presented in direct opposition to Bishop Reilly's letter! (See
Exhibits M-P, all Diocesan letters attached) This letter could have possibly rendered danger of a suit against the Diocese,
therefore the letter was not admitted into evidence.
PART 5: DILIGENCE RULE
1.3)
(See Exhibit Q, Motion to Change Trial Date) This motion was filed by Mr. Marotta to have Fr. Peter Joyce present as a witness
to my veracity and also to give testimony regarding the meeting at the Abbey as my advisor. (See Exhibit R, enclosed letter
dated April 20, 2002)
The morning of the trial Fr. Peter arrived ready to testify and was told that since the defense objected because he was not
a fresh complaint witness, that he was not allowed to testify. (See references to Father Peter in transcripts page 126) While
Father is being referenced, he was sitting in the courtroom and unable to testify.
(See Exhibits S & T, Freedom of Information Act letter to John J. Conte dated May 19, 2006 and reply letter from DA's
office to me)
It is disturbing to find there was no Motion to Dismiss Father Peter Joyce as a witness. There was no proposal to ask Judge
Losapio if he could be a witness, in other words Mr. Marotta failed to make any such request as there was no such objection
on the part of the Defense Counsel to allow Father Peter Joyce to testify. No such records exist. I was set up to be the only
witness for the Commonwealth without having any other testimonial support.
PART
6: PRINCIPLES OF DISQUALIFICATION: LOYALTY TO CLIENT (RULE 1:10)
I was presented with disingenuous information on several occasions. Mr. Marotta (immediately after the trial)
he asked Fr. Cong if he touched any other women inappropriately in the past to which he supposedly answered "No".
This account is not in the transcripts anywhere. (See Exhibit U, letter I faxed to Mr. Marotta on 3/13/03) I faxed Mr. Marotta
this letter expressing desire for re-trial based on Fr. Cong perjuring himself on this issue (as I had proof in the police
reports he did assault another woman in the past).
Mr. Marotta told me he was not allowed to tell me this but he said I should find a civil attorney and pursue a civil suit.
Under MGL 258B it was his obligation to inform me of my civil rights.
He also told me if I brought up X in the trial that it would have caused a mistrial. He said the jury believed me but
was sympathetic and fearful of Chu-Cong, an elderly priest, possibly going to jail. So according to Mr. Marotta, the decision
of the jury was called a "jury nullification" because of the jury's sympathy for Chu-Cong.
Mr. Marotta failed
to pursue X as she was willing to testify or write an affidavit in support of me. (See Exhibit V, Police Report)
Under MGL 258B Section 3e I should have been informed by Mr. Marotta of financial/social assistance services. I was
not informed and this has caused me great difficulty as I was exhausting my resources to survive and was unable to find the
means to continue counseling. (I paid for my own counseling and other therapies.) (See Exhibit W, Letter from Victim Compensation
and Assistance Division, Boston)
In view of presenting this to several attorneys, it would seem filing this grievance is the best course of action for me to
take. In relation to clearing my name in the Abbey case, I felt that if I pursued a civil trial that my religious vocation
would be at stake. (See Exhibit X letter from Sister Paula Kelleher Vicaress for Religious of Diocese of Worcester.) Submitting
this grievance is a viable remedy that would clear my name and allow me to move forward with pursuing my vocational
goal with dignity. Also, my hope is to seek protection for future incidences related to these issues.
This case and the betrayal caused me suffering of incalculable cost and irreparable damage to my reputation,
vocation and faith in the legal system of Worcester Massachusetts.
Thank you
for examining these facts and serious ethical concerns.
Signed
on the ____ day of May 2007
Sister Keri M. Burnor
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEDGE WAIVER
I hereby expressly waive any attorney-client privilege as to the attorney, the subject
of this grievance, and authorize such attorney to reveal any information in the professional relationship to the Office of
Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Massachusetts.
I understand the
Disciplinary Proceedings are strictly confidential.
Signature:__________________________________Date:_______________________________
CC: Reverend Peter Joyce, St Mary's Parish Southbridge, MA 01550 ph: 508-764-3226
CC: Kristi Seymour, 71 East Charlton Road, Spencer, MA 01562 ph: 508-885-4737
CC: Mary
T. Jean, Sixteen Fifth Avenue, Leominster, MA 01453 ph: 978-466-6823
CC: Joseph D. Early Jr.,
District Attorney, Worcester District Attorney's Main Office, 2 Main Street 01608 Ph: 508-755-8601
