IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GENE STILP, CITIZEN,

PRO SE,
PETITIONER,
v.

:
:
:
:
:

No.

:
:
:
:
:
BRUCE BEEMER
:
FIRST DEPUTY
:
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
:
:
RESPONDENTS :
KATHLEEN KANE
PENNSYLVANIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL

___________________________________________________________________________________

PETITION FOR REVIEW

(APPLICATION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS PURSUANT
TO THIS COURT'S KING'S BENCH POWERS)
I. INTRODUCTION
For the last year the citizens of Pennsylvania have observed the deterioration Attorney General
Kathleen Kane and the Office of Attorney General under the direction of Attorney General Kathleen
Kane. From the facts stated below a picture can be drawn that shows that Attorney General Kathleen
Kane's personal legal problems and personal conflicts have led to a series of critical criminal felony
and misdemeanor charges against Kathleen Kane that include, perjury, false swearing, abuse of office,
official suppression, and contempt of court. The factual picture also includes a series of Pennsylvania
Supreme Court Disciplinary Board complaints that have led the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to
suspend Kathleen Kane's Pennsylvania law license because of the breach of the Rules of Professional
Conduct for attorneys in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Observations of the commonwealth taxpayers' of the functioning of Kathleen Kane as Attorney General
are that Kane's personal legal problems have greatly overshadowed the proper functioning of the Office
of Attorney General and those who have the constitutional oversight of the functioning of the Office of

Attorney General are now attempting to remove Kathleen Kane as attorney general for "reasonable
cause" under Article VI, Section 7 of the Constitution.
Since Kathleen Kane's legal suspension, on September 21, 2015, the Office of Attorney General
legal functioning has been assumed for the most part by the First Deputy Attorney General and a
battery of three Executive Deputy Attorneys General under him. Some legal tasks had apparently
been delegated by Kane.
The purpose of this case is to ask the Pennsylvania Supreme Court if assumption of the the
Constitutional authority of the Attorney General and the duties of the Attorney General under the
Commonwealth Attorneys Act by the First Deputy Attorney General and the Executive Deputy
Attorneys General is legal when there is no vacancy in the position of Attorney General and no
definitive delegation of authority has occurred for many of the duties of the Attorney General as
listed in the Commonwealth Attorneys Act.
Furthermore, the purpose of this case is also to give the staff of the Office of Attorney General the
proper guidelines in the present unprecedented set of facts where an attorney general with a
suspended law license cannot function as an attorney general in any legal capacity, and the Office
of Attorney General staff has not effectively been delegated the legal authority, before the
effective suspension of the law license of the Attorney General, for many of the duties that are
listed as the duties of the Attorney General in the Commonwealth Attorneys Act.

II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This petition for review is properly filed with this Honorable Court pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.
502 (vesting supreme court with powers of the Court of King's Bench) and Pa. R.A.P. 1551(b)
(Supreme Court "to hear and decide original jurisdiction petitions for review in accordance with
law").
1

This Court's jurisdiction of the Court of King's Bench is embodied in statute.

The Supreme Court shall have and exercise the powers vested in it by the Constitution
of Pennsylvania, including the power generally to minister justice to all persons and to
exercise the powers of the court, as fully and amply, to all intents and purposes, as the
justices of the Court of King's Bench, Common Pleas and Exchequer, at Westminster.
or any of them, could or might do on May 22, 1722.
42 Pa. C.S.A. 502; see also Pa. Constr. art. V, 2 ("The Supreme Court shall have
jurisdiction as shall be provided by law.")
2

Petitioner has no other forum within which to seek final redress for these grievances

as averred in the Petition for Review accompanying this application.

3

This Court has jurisdiction and is the only venue wherein the controversy outlined

in the Petition for Review attached hereto can be ultimately heard and determined with finality.

III. PARTIES
4

Respondent Kathleen Kane is the elected Pennsylvania Attorney General who was

sworn in on January 15, 2013. Kathleen Kane was suspended from the practice of law in Pennsylvania
on September 21, 2015.
5 Respondent Bruce Beemer is the First Deputy Attorney General. Mr. Beemer has
three Executive Deputy Attorneys General named James Donahue, Robert Mulle, and Lawrence
Cherba. All of the above are Pennsylvania attorneys.
6 Your Petitioner in the present filing is Gene Stilp, a Pennsylvania citizen and
taxpayer. Gene Stilp is a taxpayer advocate and citizen activist who has brought successful actions in
various courts on key topics of Pennsylvania law. For example, Mr. Stilp was the pro se, successful
petitioner under this very same King's Bench application process before the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court filed in the 2005 pay raise case in Pennsylvania Supreme Court against the legislature's use of
the unvouchered expenses to increase their pay. Gene Stilp also filed the King's Bench Petition on
October 20, 2015 to ask this Court to force the use of Article VI, Section 7. That petition was
withdrawn when the Senate finally acted to utilize the Article VI, Section 7 removal process.
Taxpayer status to file in the Supreme Court stands because no administrative or legislative activity
has been undertaken to clarify the exact duties to be exercised by staff of the Office of Attorney
General in light of an attorney general having a suspended law license. Petitioner realizes that the
situation is critical for the administration of justice and there are no guidelines when a suspended
attorney cannot act in any legal capacity as the head of the Office of Attorney General, that office
being in charge of the enforcement of laws in Pennsylvania. In a letter dated October 26, 2015,
Petitioner had asked the First Deputy Attorney General Bruce Beemer to seek the Commonwealth
Court's guidance in this matter but no action in that Court or the Supreme Court has been commenced
by First deputy Beemer or any other party. Mr. Stilp has filed six Disciplinary Board complaints

against Kathleen Kane from August 11, 2015 to November 3, 2015 as more and more of Kane's
behavior was revealed. There is no administrative action that can be undertaken to resolve the legal
delegation situation.
7 Mr. Stilp was also the successful complainant in the Federal Third Circuit
District Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 against the Pennsylvania State
Ethics Commission involving the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission violations of
citizens' First Amendment rights of Free Speech.
IV. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

8.

The present Attorney General of Pennsylvania is Kathleen Kane.

9.

Kathleen Kane was elected in November of 2012 and became Attorney General in

January of 2013.
10.

The Sections of the Pennsylvania Constitution that refer to the Attorney General are

Article IV, Sections 4.1, 5, 6 and 7 for this Petition. These are Exhibit A.
11.

Certain sections of the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, Act of October 15, 1980, P.L.

950, No. 164. are also applicable to this case. This is Exhibit B.
12. Kathleen Kane has been charged with numerous crimes.
13. The Montgomery County District Attorney charged Kathleen Kane with perjury, false
swearing, abuse of office, official, suppression, and contempt of court on August 6, 2015. That
official charge sheet is attached as Exhibit C.

14. On August 25, 2015, the Disciplinary Board of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
filed a Petition to suspend the law license of Kathleen Kane.

15. On September 21, 2015, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an Order suspending the
law license of Attorney General Kathleen Kane as of October 21, 2015. That Order is Exhibit
D.

16. On October 1, 2015, the Montgomery County District Attorney filed new charges

against Kathleen Kane. That charging document is Exhibit E.

17. On September 25, 2015 Kathleen Kane issued two letters delegating authority over some
functions (wire tapping and grand jury duty) of the Attorney General to individuals in the
OAG. These are exhibit F.
18. On October 22, 2015, First Deputy Attorney General and the three Executive Deputy Attorneys
General sent Kathleen Kane a Memo describing the legal functions of the OAG while Kane was
suspended from the practice of law. This is exhibit G.
19. On October 26, 2015, the Pennsylvania Senate set up a special Senate Address
Committee to ascertain the ability of the Senate and Governor to implement the language of
Article VI, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
20. On November 9, 2015 that Senate committee help its first hearing with three
district attorneys.
21. On November 17, 2015, that Senate committee held its second hearing presenting
Pennsylvania constitutional and ethics experts.
22.On November 18, 2015 the Senate Address Committee heard testimony from the First
Deputy Attorney General and the three Executive Deputy Attorneys General. The URL for that
hearing is http://senateaddress.pasen.gov/ and audio transcript of that hearing is Exhibit H.
23. In the testimony the panelists described the functioning of the OAG to the senators. First Deputy
Attorney General Bruce Beemer went over the October 22, 2015 Letter to Kane which described the
breakdown of possible legal duties as of October 22, 2015.
24. During time mark 1:00 of the hearing First Deputy Beemer noted at the beginning
that in response to the four attorneys letter of October 22, 2015, no document had come from
Kathleen Kane at any time that gave the overall breakdown of the duties or a clear line of
demarcation for the legal duties in the Office of Attorney General after Kane's suspension. The
only duty letters noted were the September 25, 2015 letters from Kane delegating wire tap and

grand jury duties.

25. As of November 23, 2015 there is no vacancy in the position of Attorney General.
V. ARGUMENT
26. This is a case of first impression for the Supreme Court. This is an area of the
Commonwealth Attorneys Act which the Supreme Court has not had the opportunity to clarify
for the citizens of the Commonwealth. Section 202 of the Act, Vacancy in office does not
define vacancy as having anything to do with the suspension of an attorney general's law license
and the impact such a suspension has on the capacity of the attorney general to complete the
duties described in the Section 204 of the Commonwealth.
27. The sections of the Pennsylvania Constitution that deals with the Attorney General
are not helpful either. No section defines vacancy as not being able to fulfill the legal duties
assigned to the attorney general because of a legal license suspension.
28. Section 202 of the Commonwealth Attorneys Act does not designate the First
Deputy Attorney General to assume the duties of the elected Attorney General when that
Attorney General is incapacitated to practice law because of a suspension of a law license.
29. Section 202 only says Whenever there shall be a vacancy in the position of
Attorney General , the first deputy shall exercise the powers and perform the duties of the
Attorney General until the vacancy is filled.
30. In the present case the First Deputy Attorney General and the Executive Deputy
Attorneys General have conferred upon themselves the non-delegated duties of the Attorney
General without the benefit of statutory or Constitutional direction. While it is good public
service to go the extra mile and operate by the seat of the pants, it leaves the Office of Attorney
General completely open to the question of the legal source of the authority by which they are
functioning for many of the Attorney General's personal duties outlined in the Commonwealth
Attorneys Act. This has lead to concerns by the First Deputy Attorney at the hearing at time
mark 107:00 of the transcript that defendants may use the delegation of authority as defensive
motions in legal cases.

31. The First Deputy Attorney General and the Executive Deputy Attorneys General
have stated that they had sought the guidance of the Disciplinary Board by letter but did not
receive a reply.
32. The First Deputy Attorney General and the Executive Deputy Attorneys General
did not file a case on this matter with either the Commonwealth Court or the Supreme Court
asking either court to furnish the legal framework for the legal authority on how to proceed in
this situation of first impression. First Deputy Attorney General said at the November 18,
2105 Senate hearing at time mark 97:00 of the hearing that he had searched nationally for a
comparative situation and could find none. The Attorney General, Kathleen Kane while not
being able to practice law and not being able to direct any legal action in the OAG did not ask
the courts for direction either. Kane would have had to file through a private attorney after the
suspension because Kane would not have been able to direct the OAG attorneys to file such a
case. Kane has taken no such private action. In a letter dated August 26, 2105 this Petitioner
had asked First Deputy Attorney General Beemer to file a case before the Commonwealth
Court seeking their help when no direction on the delegation of duties was available from
Kane. This letter is Exhibit I.
33.

Petitioner is therefore left to file this Petition and hopefully certain parties will respond

with legal solutions, and amicus briefs from constitutional experts may enlighten the path to be
followed in this case of first impression.
34. Section 204 lists the legal areas where the Attorney General must be engaged.
Section 204 (a) (1) has the Attorney General giving legal advice to the Governor. Section
204 (a) (3) has the Attorney General defending the constitutionality of statutes. Section 204
(a) (4) has the Attorney General rendering a legal opinion related to appropriations. Section
204 (b) has the Attorney General reviewing the rules and regulations of the Commonwealth
agencies. Under this section the Attorney General can appeal decisions of various agencies
to Commonwealth Court. Section 204 (c) has the Attorney General representing the
Commonwealth and its agencies in actions brought against the Commonwealth, and may
intervene in charitable bequests and trusts, anti trust laws, collection of all debts or taxes and
settlement of defined cases. Section 204 (d) has the Attorney general administering the
Consumer Affairs programs. Section 204 (e) refers to the limitations on the Attorney
General on the settlement of claims. Section 204 (f) sets out the Attorney General's duties in

regard to leases, contracts and bonds.

35. No where in Section 204 does the language state the Office of Attorney
General. The language clearly states the Attorney General has these duties personally under
this Legal Advice and Civil Matters section.
36. An example that was brought forward by Execute Deputy Attorney General Mulle
at time mark 29:00 minutes of the November 18, 2105 hearing was where General Obligation
Bonds of the Commonwealth would require an attorney general's approval and the OAG does
not know how they will deal with that.
37. Section 205 lays out the Attorney Generals duties for criminal prosecutions.
38. Under Section 205 (a) states the Attorney General shall have the power to prosecute
in any county criminal court the following cases: (1) criminal charges against State officials or
employees (2) criminal charges against corrupt organizations, (3) help the counties in
investigations and with resources... (4) petitioning the court to supersede a county prosecution...
(5) accepting a criminal case from a president judge... (6) criminal referral from a
Commonwealth agency... (7) indictments returned by an investigating grand jury by the
Attorney General... (8) State medicaid Fraud Control Unit criminal charges... .
39. Under 205 (b) refers to the Attorney General's concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute.
205

(c) refers to criminal appeals by the Attorney General.

40. Under 205 (d) the Attorney General has the powers when prosecuting to employ

special deputies and confer powers on them.

41. Under Section 206 refers specifically to the Attorney General and investigating
grand juries and investigations.
42. Section 207 lists the Attorney General's membership in the Board of Pardons and
other membership posts in state government and when a deputy can be designated to serve in
certain posts.
43. Through out sections 204 to 207 the Office of the Attorney General is not
mentioned as the appropriate place where the authority lies and who can exercise this legal

authority. Also various sections refer to the personal he or his when referring to the
Attorney General's duties under the sections. See sections 204 (a) (1), 204 (a) (4), 204 (b), 204
c, 204 (f), 205 (a) (5), 205 (a) (6), 205 (d), 206 (a), 207, and 208.
44. These references to he and his refer to the person of the attorney general and not
the Office of Attorney General.
45. In the present case, that person is the elected Attorney General Kathleen Kane, who
by reason of legal suspension cannot participate in any of the legal duties under these sections
of the Commonwealth Attorneys Act.
46. Although Kathleen Kane under the pressure of the Disciplinary Rule 217 apparently
designated certain attorneys in the OAG for wiretap and grand jury duties, the bulk of the legal
duties of the Attorney General remain legally undelegated by any document.
47. The First Deputy Attorney General and the Executive Deputy Attorneys General
who have assumed control of the overall legal function of the Attorney General have to point to
exactly where all there assumed delegated legal authority derives to satisfy this Court.
48. Kathleen Kane has to show where legal authority was delegated and to who when
Kane was suspended. Could the lack of exercising the delegation of legal authority by Kane
could be construed as a dereliction of duty and a violation of Rule 217 of the Disciplinary Code
and add to the reasonable cause argument for Kane's removal under the Article VI, Section 7, a
constitutional removal process for an attorney general?

VI. RELIEF SOUGHT

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests this Honorable Court to issue process as follows:
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS to Kathleen Kane to produce each and every document by which she has
delegated any legal authority to anyone in the Office of Attorney General showing the person,
the time period, the function, the relation of that legal function to the duties of the attorney
general as defined in the Commonwealth Attorneys Act from Kane's date of assuming office
until the effective date of Kane's suspension of the law license, and during the period allowed
under Rule 217 of the Disciplinary Rules for attorneys to resolve matters before ending legal

duties under the rule.

A WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing First Deputy Attorney General Bruce Beemer to show exactly
which duties he has assumed since the September 21, 2015 suspension of Kathleen Kane's law
license. The information should include each and every document by which authority was
delegated to him by Kathleen Kane at any time during Kane's legally active tenure as Attorney
General and thereafter, and any document that shows a delegation of authority by him to any
other person in the Office of Attorney General, especially the three Executive Deputy Attorneys
General now under attorney Beemer's direction, before and after September 21, 2015. The
information should include a listing for each of the duties that are listed in the duties of the
Attorney General in the Commonwealth Attorneys Act and by what authority these duties were
assumed by the First Deputy Attorney General and the three Executive Attorneys General.
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the three Executive Deputy Attorneys General to provide
exactly which duties they have assumed since the September 21, 2015 suspension of Kathleen
Kane's law license. The information should include each and every document by which authority
was delegated to them by Kathleen Kane at any time during Kane's legally active tenure as
Attorney General and any document that shows a delegation of authority to them by Kane after
her suspension, and, and delegation of authority to them by the First Deputy Attorney General
subsequent to Kane's suspension. The information should include a listing for each of their
duties that are listed in the duties of the Attorney General in the Commonwealth Attorneys Act
and by what authority these duties were assumed by them individually.
AN ORDER form the Supreme Court clarifying the fact that a vacancy in the position of Attorney
General is not defined by the loss of legal abilities because of the suspension of the law license
of the elected Attorney General.
AN ORDER from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court defining the process for the transference of legal
duties within the Office of Attorney General when the Attorney General becomes legally
incapacitated by the suspension of that attorney's law license and that attorney general has not
delegated certain legal duties under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act.
AN ORDER from the Supreme Court defining the non-transference of legal duties by an Attorney
General under legal suspension during the time appointed to accomplish that task under the
Disciplinary Rules of Section 217 of the Disciplinary Code as a violation of the Disciplinary

Rules.
AN ORDER from the Supreme Court defining the the non-transference of legal duties in the present
case as a gross violation of the Disciplinary Code and as such the violation can serve as
reasonable cause for removal of the attorney as attorney general under Article VI, Section 7 of
the Pennsylvania Constitution.
The Questions sought to be addressed in the Application for Leave to File are incorporated here by
reference. Whatsoever other writs, orders or decrees as shall be constitutional, just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
Gene Stilp, citizen, pro se

By: Gene Stilp _______________________________________

1550 Fishing Creek Valley Road
Harrisburg, Pa 17112
717-829-5600

Date: November 23, 2015

VERIFICATION
I, Gene Stilp. aver that the statements in the foregoing petition for review are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge or information and belief. I make this verification subject
to 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

Gene Stilp, citizen pro se

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GENE STILP, CITIZEN,

PRO SE,
PETITIONER,
v.

:
:
:
:
:

No.

:
KATHLEEN KANE
:
PENNSYLVANIA
:
ATTORNEY GENERAL
:
:
BRUCE BEEMER
:
FIRST DEPUTY
:
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
:
:
RESPONDENTS :
NOTICE TO PLEAD
To Respondents: KATHLEEN KANE AND BRUCE BEEMER
You are hereby notified pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 3309(b) to file a written response to the enclosed
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ORIGINAL PROCESS PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE
OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 3307 within fourteen (14) days from service hereof or a judgment may be
entered against you.

Date: November 23, 2015

______________________________
Gene Stilp, citizen, pro se

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GENE STILP, CITIZEN,

PRO SE,
PETITIONER,
v.

:
:
:
:
:

No.

:
KATHLEEN KANE
:
PENNSYLVANIA
:
ATTORNEY GENERAL
:
:
BRUCE BEEMER
:
FIRST DEPUTY
:
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
:
:
RESPONDENTS :
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner
indicated below which services satisfies the requirements of Pa. R.A.P. 121:
Service by hand delivery:
Kathleen Kane
16th Floor
Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
First Deputy Attorney General
Bruce Beemer
16th Floor
Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Date: November 23, 2015
_____________________________
Gene Stilp
1550 Fishing Creek Valley Road

Harrisburg, PA 17112
717-829-5600