Burnor/Abbey Case Complaints
GRIEVANCE ON ANTHONY JORDAN MAROTTA
FROM: SISTER KERI M. BURNOR
INFORMATION ABOUT ATTORNEY
1. ATTORNEY'S NAME: Anthony Jordan Marotta
ATTORNEY'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.
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
July 11th 2007
Frances J. Nugent
Social workers number 205073
20.01: Unethical or Unprofessional Conduct in General
(a) any provisions of the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers, as adopted by the 1979 NASW Delegate Assembly and amended from time to time hereafter, to the extent that said provision is not inconsistent with federal or state law;
4.04 Dishonesty, Fraud, and Deception
Social workers should not participate in, condone, or be associated with dishonesty, fraud, or deception.
On January 20th 2003 Most Reverend Bishop Daniel P. Reilly (per Brother Alphonsus Maria MacGovern, see Affidavit attached) suggested I contact Frances Nugent of the Office for Healing and Prevention for support.
Within a day (or shortly thereafter, cannot determine date legibility of my 2001 journal) I received a call from Frances Nugent and we spoke for 12 minutes. She suggested I come in and fill out a formal complaint to the Diocese. She said the Pastoral Care Committee would discuss my case and see what can be done but that I first must come in (to the Diocesan Office) and complete the formal complaint.
I received a call again within a short period of time and spoke with Patricia Engdahl (At this point I was confused with who I was speaking with because in the initial "inquiry" I was speaking with Ms. Nugent.) Mrs. Engdahl informed me that since my case was involved in the criminal legal system, that it would not be necessary for me to fill out the formal complaint with the Diocese since I already provided a complaint testimony to the State Detective Unit. Also the Healing and Prevention Office informed me that since I was already receiving counseling through State provision (at that time, later I paid for my therapy out of pocket) that they would not need to assist me with counseling services either and apologized for not being able to assist me.
In a later conversation between Brother Alphonsus MacGovern and Ms. Nugent I was told that since I was involved in a case with the St. Joseph Abbey and since the Bishop does not have any jurisdiction over them that the Diocese could not assist me with my situation. They gave me no other avenues of recourse.
After the trial Brother Alphonsus MacGovern insisted that I speak with Ms. Nugent again with the hopes of renewing a healing relationship to the Diocese through the Office for Healing and Prevention. It was understood that since my case was now out of the courts that I would have a better chance of attaining pastoral care and an opportunity to revisit re-establishing my vocational pursuit with the newly installed Bishop of Worcester, Most Reverend Robert McManus.
Having agreed to Brother MacGovern's well intentioned effort, and believing this time since there were no longer any seeming legal complications, we moved forward with setting up a meeting to discuss my needs.
The first meeting we had was on February 22nd 2006 at the Worcester Art Museum. Upon entering the museum Ms. Nugent introduced me to Betty Reiddy and asked if it would be "ok" for her to be present as "two heads are better than one". I permitted it and shared with her that I was expecting Brother Alphonsus MacGovern to attend as well. The purpose for this meeting was for me to go through as much of my story as was possible. Ms. Nugent asked my permission to take notes as there was much content to my experiences. I agreed hoping that this would facilitate her speaking with Bishop McManus and gaining me the opportunity to have a meeting with him. So I shared most of my story with her in about a 2-hour period with Br. Alphonsus MacGovern present partway through that meeting.
After the meeting I followed up with several electronic correspondences so we could focus the next meeting on my requests and preparation for meeting with the bishop. (If Electronic Correspondences are needed I will furnish them.)
I received a message from Ms. Nugent on March 27th 2006 at 3:51pm apologizing it took her so long to contact me, she said she just found my number and that she will try again tomorrow. (Exhibit A Tape Cassette Message 3)
Ms. Nugent and I were scheduled to meet for April 20th 2006 but called and asked to cancel it so she could coordinate the meeting time with Betty Reiddy schedule so she could be present.
The next message I received on April 6th 2006 from Ms. Nugent stating she had been "out of the office more than in". She offered me condolences for the loss of my cousin and asks me to call her to set up a time to meet. (Exhibit A Tape Cassette Message 4.)
I received a call from Ms. Nugent on April 25th 2006 asking to reschedule the meeting.
The 2nd meeting with Ms. Nugent was May 18th 2006 again at the Worcester Art Museum. Betty Reiddy was present and Mary Jean was there as well in support of me. (Brother MacGovern was not able to be present.) First Ms. Nugent thanked me for the E-Mails and let me know she was able to read all of them. We then discussed my suffering with having lost my job (I believed due to Abbey case publicity and had evidence to verify my suspicion) and facing the pains of not having my name restored as well as the effects of being blacklisted in church circles. We reviewed the desired implementations regarding the relationship to the St. Joseph Abbey. (see highlighted excerpt material in "Abbey E-Mails"). Ms. Jean expressed she rarely had victims interested in continuing a religious vocation and said she would like to see me embraced by the Diocesan community so as to attain my original vocational goal and aspiration. Ms. Nugent commented that it was indeed remarkable and that she would like to see the same restorative culmination materialize for me (and the Church) as well. She and Betty Reiddy both seemed to express true sympathy, compassion and cordiality. Ms. Nugent expressed that the Church would be in a position to learn much from my experience and they both thanked me for not giving up on my faith. Ms. Nugent was frank in describing that she would do her best to get me a meeting with the bishop. She said she could not make me any promises that he would see me, but that she would give it her best effort.
On June 27th 2006 I had a meeting with the bishop. Here is what my experience was like. (See attachment June 27th 2006)
Since this meeting with Bishop McManus, Ms. Nugent nor anyone from the Office of Healing and Prevention has been in contact with me. Even with the meeting with Bishop McManus being a failed attempt to restoration, my expectation of the Office of Healing and Prevention was to be offered assistance pursuing other venues within the church for canonical recourse, restorative justice or non-conflict resolution.
The deception (qualifying this part of the complaint) is that what was to be offered through the Healing and Prevention Office was not sustained healing or prevention of re-opening wounds, but further exacerbation of these wounds. The level of cooperation I offered with regards to signing release forms, producing the Case Chronology and other information requested by Ms. Nugent, seems to me to have been, on the appearance of it, a means of gaining information for the Diocese and not gaining results for my concerns. (See Release Forms Exhibits B-E)
1.06 Conflicts of Interest
Social workers should be alert to and avoid conflicts of interest that interfere with the exercise of professional discretion and impartial judgment.
Ms. Nugent has ultimately allowed me to be in an abusive situation. First of all she insisted upon my being without an advocate at the meeting with the bishop. She did not represent my interests; she could not represent my interests. How can Ms. Nugent represent my concerns and interests if her boss who pays her (for all intents and purposes) is the Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester who is Corporation Sole?
1.01 Commitment to Clients
Social workers' primary responsibility is to promote the well-being of clients.
I expressed to Ms. Nugent that I lost my job and that I was struggling to pay for my own therapy. She never made an offer to alleviate me of this burden even while the Office of Healing and Prevention offers financial assistance to pay for therapy for victims.
I reached out to Ms. Nugent and I received an automated response. When Ms. Nugent returned on March 6th 2006 she did not follow up with an E-Mail addressing my concerns. When she did get back to me (see her E-Mail to me March 13th 2006.) Ms. Nugent asks me to reach out to her. (See Electronic Correspondence attachments)
Since the meeting with the bishop, Ms. Nugent has not been active in helping to resolve the issues I expressed and no forthcoming efforts have been made to initiate contact.
(a) Social workers should provide services and represent themselves as competent only within the boundaries of their education, training, license, certification, consultation received.
Ms. Nugent lost my number and has allowed unreasonable time to lapse between phone calls and meetings. Her asking me to follow up with her at the end of the meeting with the bishop was reflective of seemingly having a flippant view of "reaching out" to victims/survivors.
From: Keri Burnor <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 22:50:14 -0500
Subject: Fw: Re: important letters/ (to) Sr. Sharon Euart letter and (to) Abbot Damian letter and his response
This letter was from Sr. Sharon Euart who was the president of canonical affairs (Canon Law Society of America, apparently now our new appointed president is Msgr. Pedone)
I was hoping to find a source who could assit me with healing and being able to return to Mass at the Abbey. (This letter was written at that time when returning to the Abbey was on my priority agenda list.)...
From: "Fnugent" <Fnugent@mail.worcesterdiocese.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 23:33:39
Subject: automated response
I will be out of the office from 2/24 until March 6th.
From: "Frances Nugent" <email@example.com>
To: "'Keri Burnor'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:47:44 -0500
Subject: RE: Abbey E-Mails/
Dear Sister Keri-- I have received your e-mails. Call me Monday the 27th
and we can make arrangements to meet. Frankie