SPRAGUE SPRAGUE Richard A. Spmguc, Esquire, (ID. 04266) Joseph R. Fodraza, In, Esquire (ID. 53612) William H. Trask, Esquire (1D. A 318229) The Wellington Building, Suite 400 135 Snuin 19'" Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-7681 Filed and Master: by the office of Juan'u'nl xecords 23 JAN 2019 10:11: M. sum Attorneys/gr HONORABLE DAYLIN LEACH 601 Suulh Henderson Road -- Suite 208 King ofI'russia, PA 19406 Plaintiff, v. CARA TAYLOR -- Bani, PA 18014 and GWEN SNYDER -- Philadelphia, PA 19104 and COLLEEN KENNEDY -- Havenown, PA 19083 Defendants. IN THE COURT 01" COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY CIVIL ACTION Term: No. NOTICE TO DEFEND NOTICE You inve been sued in courL It you wixh Io defend lglinst me claims sel form in me lollnwing pages, you must [Ike mum wimin many (20) days oner mu complaint and nolice are servcd. by entering . Inca personally or by "(army and filing in wnung wilh lhe mun your defenses or objections die claims set forth nglinsl you. Vou are warned um it you fail to do so die care may proceed win-out you .nd a judgment may be enlered nglinsl you by the cnurl without further AVISO Le hon demandnda . usted en la corte. Si usled quim due-idem de esus demands: expurriu en in paginns um. uned Ilene veinle (2n) din d: piuo ui pmir de la {echa de I: demand: In norincocion. Hm (an. amenmr um comparencil escriu en penunl 0 con |ll| nbngadn entregar i. cone en lorm. escriln sus defensn: in! objeclnnes . In: dcmandas en tonlrd de su persona. Se. avisadn que si uned no se defiende. In con: mini medians puede mminulr la demand. en comr- suyn sin Case ID: 190102559 notice for any money claimed in the complaint of for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose rnoney or property or other rights important to you. You should tøke thís pøper to your løwyer øt once. If you do not høve ø løwyer or cannot øfford one, go to or telephone the office set forth below to find out where you cøn get legal help. Philadelphia Bar Association Lawyer Referral and Information Service One Reading Center Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 (2ls) 238-ó333 TTY (21s) 4sr-6197 previo aviso o notificacion. Ademas, la corte puede decider a favor del demandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas las provisiones de esta demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades u otros derechos importantes para usted. Lleve ests demøndø ø un øbogødo immedíøtqmente. Si no tíene øbogødo o sí no tíene el dínero suficíente de pagar tøl semício. Vøyø en personø o lløme por teleþno ø Iø oficína cuyø direccìon se encuentrø escrítø øbajo pørø øveríguør donde se puede conseguír øsístencìø legø1. Asociacion De Licenciados De Filadelfia Servicio De Referencia E Informacion Legal One Reading Center Filadelfiao Pennsylvani a 19107 (21s) 238-6333 TTY (21s) 4sL-6197 Case ID: 190102559 SPRAGUE st SPRAGUE Richard A. Sprague, Esquire (1.1). 04266) Joseph R. Podraza, JI., Esquire (ID. 53612) William H. Trask, Esquire (ID. at 318229) The Wellington Building, Suite 400 135 South 19m Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 56177681 Altomeysforplaimi/f HONORABLE DAYLIN LEACH, 501 South Henderson Road 7 Suite 208 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAs King of Prussia PA 19405, PHILADELPHIA COUNTY Pluiml'fl, CIVIL ACTION v. Term: CARA TAYLOR No. -- Eath, PA 18014 and GWEN SNYDER, -- Philadelphia, PA 19104 and COLLEEN KENNEDY -- Havenown, PA 190831 Defendants. I. INTRODUCTION Defendants, jointly and severally, have combined to publish republish, and widely disseminate a salacious and despicable falsehood about plaintiff that they know to be false. One fabricator of the lie against plaintiffis an admitted liar and notorious perjurer. The other two cos conspirators have shown a reckless disregard for the truth in gleefully republishing and Case ID: 190102559 embellishing upon the serial liar's fabrication about plaintiff for the admitted purposes of destroying plaintiffs reputation. cutting short his career in public service. and harassing and harming his family. The three defendants have sought to achieve their goals by seeking to exploit for their own malicious purposes an important political movement in order to broaden the audience of their false claim among a trusting unknowing and unsuspecting public, to wrongfully mobilize and incite unwitting accomplices against plaintiff. and to inflict maximum harm on plaintiff and his family based on accusations they know to be false. The defendants have openly admitted the sole purpose of their endeavor is to see plaintiffs "head" mounted as "a trophy on their wall" regardless of truth and common decency. This action is brought to champion the Lrulh and redress Ihe defendanls' malicious falsehood. H. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff. the Honorable Daylin leach ("Leach") is an adult individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of who maintains a business address at 601 South Henderson Road, Suite 208. King of Prussia 19406. leach has served in the Senate representing 17m senatorial district since 2009. and previously was a member of the House of Representatives representing the 149'" district from 2003 to 2009. Prior to 2003, Leach pmcticed law for 16 years and was an adjunct professor at two colleges in He is married and the father of two children. 2. Defendant Cara Taylor. f/k/a/ Cam Kuhns ("Taylor") is an adult individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of residing, upon information and belief. at Bath. 18014. Case ID: 190102559 3. Defendam Colleen Kennedy ("Kennedy") is an adult individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of residing upon informaiion and belief, at -- Havertown, 19083, who is a political and public policy expert. 4. Defendam Gwen Snyder ("Snyder") is an adult individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of residing, upon informaiion and belief, at -- Philadelphia, 19104 is a selfrdescribed grassroots movement strategist and previously accused an elderly man of sexual assault who later was acquitted of her accusation following (rial in a court of law. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. The Court has jurisdiction over all parties pursuant to 42 Pa.C.s. 5301. 5. Venue is proper in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 1006(c)( 1 1v. FACTS A. Taylor is an Admitted Perjurer Who has Fabricated Lies About Leach 7. Defendam Taylor is an admitted and judicially determined perjurer and serial liar, who has willingly conceded that she will lie without compunction to promote her personal interest and agenda. 8. In sworn testimony in a court oflaw provided in 1992, Taylor has admitted that, even as a young teenager, she was willing to repeatedly lie to obtain employment under false pretenses, and would move from employer to employer to avoid detection. (N.T., Jun. 91 1992 at p. 1:15721, hereto at Exhibil Case ID: 190102559 9. As an adult, Taylor lied under oath at her mother’s 1992 trial for the attempted murder of Taylor’s step-father. At the trial, Taylor falsely swore that she, not her mother, was responsible for the attempted murder of Taylor’s step-father. (Id. at p. 5:18-23.) 10. As a result, Taylor was charged by the Lehigh County District Attorney with perjury and false swearing after the 1992 trial and later pleaded guilty to charges of felony perjury and false swearing for which she was incarcerated. (See N.T., Apr. 15, 1999 at p. 7:1724, attached hereto at Exhibit “B.”) 11. Indeed, during the original 1992 attempted-murder trial, Taylor made clear her willingness to lie for her own benefit and for that of her mother, which admissions may have contributed to the jury’s disregard for her false testimony and unanimous guilty verdict. (See, e.g., N.T. Jun. 10, 1992 at pp. 92:25 – 93:7, Exhibit A.) 12. Leach, criminal defense counsel in Taylor’s mother’s 1992 criminal trial, was an early victim of Taylor’s stated willingness to lie in order to achieve her ends by any means. 13. In neither her mother’s sentencing for attempted homicide, nor in her own sentencing for perjury did Taylor allege any unethical or inappropriate conduct on the part of Leach, despite the fact that allegations of such misconduct, if believed, would have potentially helped both her and her mother avoid or shorten incarceration. 14. At her sentencing for perjury, Taylor testified under oath that lying and perpetrating a fraud on the court in her mother’s criminal trial was her idea alone. 15. After Taylor’s mother was sentenced for attempted homicide, Leach no longer had any involvement in her case, and had no further contact with either Taylor or her mother outside of testifying at Taylor’s mother’s 1999 post-conviction proceedings.   4 Case ID: 190102559 16. Taylor’s mother unsuccessfully pursued the full gamut of direct appeal options for seven years. 17. Seven years after her trial, in 1999, during post-conviction proceedings to challenge the conviction for the attempted murder of Taylor’s step-father, and in an effort to secure her release from prison, Taylor’s mother filed a Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) Petition which fabricated a story of an improper, one-time years-earlier sexual encounter between Taylor and Leach as a ground for overturning her mother’s 1992 conviction. 18. Despite the allegations in the Petition, when afforded the opportunity in 1999 to testify under oath in a court of law, Taylor declined, and her mother agreed to voluntarily withdraw Taylor’s false and salacious allegation against Leach rather than see Taylor face the prospect of a second perjury conviction with an accompanying longer prison sentence. (N.T., Apr. 15, 1999 at pp. 6:12 – 8:20, Exhibit B.) 19. Taylor and her mother withdrew the false and defamatory allegation, despite the court making it clear that they would be forever waiving the opportunity to gain any benefit that the false allegation might afford them. 20. Taylor’s mother even opined on the record at the April 15, 1999 court proceeding that she was voluntarily withdrawing the false allegation of improper conduct against Leach by Taylor because her daughter, Taylor, was a convicted perjurer whose fabrications could not be believed. (Id. at p. 8:6-8.) 21. Despite the fact that the false and salacious allegation was withdrawn by Taylor and her mother, Leach voluntarily testified at the hearing that he had no physical relationship with Taylor at any time. He so testified under oath, something Taylor refused to do at that same hearing. (Id. at p. 53:11-20.)   5 Case ID: 190102559 22. Moreover, Taylor’s false testimony and subsequent guilty pleas on the charge of perjury and false swearing were widely reported in the contemporaneous media. 23. For example, the November issue of The Morning Call reported that Taylor would “spend 30 days in jail for lying when she testified in her mother’s Lehigh County trial,” and although “[n]ot everyone who fibs in court is charged with perjury, [Taylor’s] lie was one of ‘monstrous proportions.’” (Debbie Garliki, Woman gets jail term for lying at mom’s trial, THE MORNING CALL, Nov. 13, 1993, p. 91, attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”) B. The Defendants Weaponize and Embellish Taylor’s Knowingly False Accusation 24. Kennedy volunteered a number of times on Leach’s Congressional campaign of 25. At the conclusion of the 2014 campaign, Leach and Kennedy parted on good 2014. terms, with Kennedy posting friendly and positive messages on Leach’s social media accounts. To Leach’s knowledge, he and Kennedy have never been in the same room together or communicated in person again. 26. Leach has, to his knowledge, never personally met, or spoken to, Snyder. 27. Leach’s first became aware of the existence of Snyder when she began attacking him on social media as “predatory,” an “abuser,” an “assaulter” and a “rapist.” 28. During the course of the preceding year, Kennedy and Snyder, upon information and belief, have become increasingly close associates of Taylor. In fact, it is believed and therefore averred that the three defendants are in constant contact through social media and regularly meet in-person. 29. Kennedy and Snyder operate on the fringes of state and local politics and in collaboration with Taylor, have recently taken to exploiting the energetic fervor of legitimate   6 Case ID: 190102559 political activists to amplify their concerted attacks on Leach to advance their own private ambitions and vindictive agendas. 30. Now Kennedy and Snyder, using the inconsistent and demonstrably false accusation of a known and convicted perjurer (Taylor), have dogged Leach continually with outrageous accusations of sexual misconduct. 31. At all times Kennedy and Snyder knew that Taylor was personally not credible and that her claim of sexual misconduct by Leach was not credible. Nevertheless, Kennedy and Snyder spread Taylor’s false allegation against Leach despite Taylor’s known long history of lying and deceit, thereby acting in blatant and reckless disregard of the truth. 32. And all three Defendants knew and have known that Taylor’s allegation of rape against Leach is false before and at the time they nevertheless decided to recklessly broadcast Taylor’s false claim against Leach through the Internet and elsewhere. 33. At all times relevant hereto, Snyder and Kennedy knew of Taylor’s felony conviction in 1993 and of the withdrawal of her heinous and false allegation of improper conduct by Leach under the threat of new perjury charges if this allegation was actually pursued before the Court at the 1999 hearing. 34. Nevertheless, despite having knowledge of the falsity of Taylor’s sexual- misconduct claim against Leach, Snyder and Kennedy agreed to conspire with Taylor to extend the public reach of Taylor’s false claims for the sole purpose of injuring Leach’s professional and personal reputations and to shamefully subject him and his family to public ridicule and scorn under false pretenses. 35. By way of illustration, Taylor, who upon information and belief enjoyed the support and encouragement of Snyder and Kennedy, maliciously published on her publicly   7 Case ID: 190102559 accessible Facebook page her fabricated account of prior contact with Leach, stating repeatedly beginning in February 2018 that Leach “drove [Taylor] to his apartment and sexually assaulted [Taylor].” (Exhibit “D” at p. 6 of 7.) 36. Thereafter, and throughout 2018, Taylor repeatedly published and republished her false attacks on Leach as evidenced by a sampling thereof, a compilation of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “E.” 37. During this time, upon information and belief, Snyder and Kennedy encouraged Taylor’s increasing dissemination of her knowingly false allegation against Leach while assisting Taylor in expanding the reach of Taylor’s false attacks by separately republishing them online, by appearing at public events to harass Leach about Taylor’s false claim, and by encouraging others in person and over social media to take action against Leach based on Taylor’s knowingly false allegation against Leach. 38. Not only did Snyder and Kennedy republish Taylor’s false accusation against Leach, they also incredibly embellished this false claim to better serve their own malicious objectives. 39. For instance, Snyder took to every corner of the Internet proclaiming as a “confirmed” fact that Leach is a “rapist and a predator,” (Exhibit “F”) criticizing Leach’s activities during the “MLK Day of Service” with a non sequitur “reminder” that “Daylin is credibly accused of raping a 17 year old….” (Exhibit “G.”) Snyder made these false claims against Leach knowing them to be false at the time of their making or with reckless disregard as to the truthfulness of these claims predicated on Taylor’s made-up accusation against Leach. 40. And at a recent protest march in Center City Philadelphia, Snyder lured a gaggle of unsuspecting protestors off their route with her bullhorn, imploring her unwitting audience, on   8 Case ID: 190102559 the basis of her knowingly false accusations, to contact Leach and demand that he resign (Exhibit “H”) because “we’re done with rapists holding office.” (Exhibit “I.”) Snyder’s efforts, initially directed at those physically present, were captured on video and rebroadcast over the Internet. 41. Similarly, Kennedy, in an unsolicited response to a post announcing a public open house appearance to discuss public health issues, announced she would not be attending Leach’s open house because “He statutory raped [Taylor],” a factual representation which she knew and knows is false. (Exhibit “J.”) 42. Elsewhere and at other times Kennedy wrote with malice and/or reckless indifference to the truth that “Daylin Leach sexually assaulted [Taylor] when she was 17 years old” (Exhibit “K”), and accused Leach of “prey[ing] upon the most vulnerable.” (Exhibit “L.”) 43. Emboldened by Snyder’s and Kennedy’s malicious advocacy, Taylor, by the fall of 2018, had adopted not only her co-conspirators’ tactics but their rhetoric as well, increasingly referring to Leach as “my rapist,” a knowingly false claim. (Exhibit “M.”) 44. Not satisfied with confining these malicious attacks to the Internet and individuals who could be physically reached at public gatherings, Taylor, with upon information and belief the advice and encouragement of Snyder and Kennedy, fabricated a “private criminal complaint” in November 2018 setting forth in salacious detail one version of the fictional 1991 encounter with Leach that she previously refused to confirm under oath. 45. But just as she had been unwilling to share her fabricated story under oath at her mother’s PCRA proceeding, Taylor conveniently declined to sign her purported “complaint” in November 2018 thereby avoiding the admonition contained therein that by signing the document, she verifies, subject to criminal penalty, the truth of the facts alleged. (Exhibit “N.”)   9 Case ID: 190102559 46. And rather than submit the November 2018 “complaint” to the appropriate authorities, Taylor, with upon information and belief the assistance of her co-conspirators Snyder and Kennedy, distributed the unsigned and unsworn document, albeit styled as a private criminal complaint, to the offices of Leach’s colleagues at the state capital in Harrisburg, which has since caused the senate leadership to initiate an independent investigation. 47. Although relieved Taylor’s fabrication will finally be subjected to scrutiny and confident that any investigation will confirm what has been known to all three of the defendants from the start—that Taylor’s malicious accusation against Leach is categorically false—Leach and his family have nevertheless suffered and continue to suffer harassment, humiliation, and embarrassment as a result of the defendants’ obscene misconduct. 48. Not only has the oft-repeated, demonstrably-false allegation by Taylor against Leach besmirched the reputation of Leach and materially affected his ability to perform some duties of his public office, but his family has been similarly affected. 49. Leach’s minor children have been subjected to public ridicule and harassment, and his wife developed health issues, including loss of feeling in her extremities, necessitating a diagnostic brain scan, as a result of the stress of the highly humiliating and public false attacks. 50. As a result of the actions of the defendant, the plaintiff has been subjected to numerous other people posting on social media, calling him a “rapist” and a “creep” and an “abuser” and demanding his resignation. 51. The public incitement based on the defendants’ malicious and wrongful conduct delineated in this pleading has even compelled Leach to recently upgrade the security systems installed at his private residence out of concern for his safety and that of his family.   10 Case ID: 190102559 52. And defendants, themselves, have even confirmed the sole sick objective of their unconscionable defamatory assault on Leach through a recent Internet post by Snyder: “Y’all, I’m a sexual misconduct accountability trophy hunter these days. I have Marcel Groen’s head on my wall, a place next to it reserved for Daylin’s, and plenty of space left over for more[,]” regardless of truth, basic common decency, or the Law. (Exhibit “O.”) Count I – Defamation (Leach v. All Defendants) 53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the averments contained in the foregoing paragraphs of plaintiff’s Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein. 54. Defendants published the above-mentioned statements, innuendos and implications concerning Daylin Leach on repeated occasions as set forth above and in the attached exhibits. 55. Each of the statements, innuendoes and implications concerning Leach were false and defamatory. 56. These statements, innuendoes and implications accuse Leach of criminal conduct and thus are defamatory per se. 57. The above-mentioned statements, innuendoes and implications concerning Leach were published to individuals, including individuals in Philadelphia County, who understood said statements, innuendos and implications to refer to, and defame, Leach. 58. Defendants knew that the statements, innuendoes and implications concerning Leach were totally false. In the alternative, Defendants Snyder and Kennedy made the statements, innuendos, and implications with a reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.   11 Case ID: 190102559 59. Defendants maliciously published, republished and distributed the aforementioned defamatory statements, innuendoes and implications concerning Leach, knowing that they were false, or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. 60. Defendants’ false and defamatory statements, innuendoes and implications have severely injured Leach in that they have tended to: (a) blacken and besmirch Leach’s reputation; (b) expose Leach to public contempt, ridicule or hatred; (c) convey the impression that Leach is a rapist, a criminal, and a sexual predator; (d) detract from Leach’s respect as a state senator in Pennsylvania, (e) subject Leach to embarrassment and humiliation within the Commonwealth and local community; and (f) interfere with Leach’s ability to conduct some of his duties as an elected official. 61. Each of the aforementioned defamatory statements, innuendoes and implications was understood by third parties, including in the Philadelphia area, to pertain to, and defame, Leach. 62. Defendants’ defamatory publications were so outrageous and malicious as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. 63. As a proximate result of defendants’ malicious, intentional and/or reckless publication of these false and defamatory statements and innuendos, Leach’s good name and reputation has been and will continue to be harmed, and Leach is entitled to such damages as will compensate Leach for the injury to his reputation, as well as punitive damages to punish the defendants for their conduct and deter them and others similarly situated from like acts in the future. WHEREFORE, plaintiff Daylin Leach demands judgment against defendants Cara Taylor, Gwen Snyder and Colleen Kennedy, jointly and severally, in an amount of compensatory   12 Case ID: 190102559 damages in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), together with interest and costs, and punitive damages in an amount which will punish the defendants for their conduct and deter them and others similarly situated from like acts in the future. SPRAGUE & SPRAGUE By:   /s/ Joseph R. Podraza, Jr. Joseph R. Podraza, Jr., Esquire 13 Case ID: 190102559 vERrFrcaTIo¡{ [, Daylin Leach, am the plaintiff in the subject action and verify that the statements in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information ¡nd belief, I do further understand that these statements are made subject to the penalties of l8 Pa.C.S. $4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. tg Date Hon. Daylin Case ID: 190102559 Exhibit A Case ID: 190102559 cçJu R.T û F: Cû itt3,rON pL EÂ$ O Þ. t Eir TG H Ct'ü !üT Ì* cRrMIrüÀr, ÞIvI$rü!{ *** coMÞåür{þtEAr.,r:$ oF FH$i¡srtvÂNrà c : I{o, 1XE6 ûË vg LSgL KåT'gfIEgTü SPËTË{ *?t* r e gr J. I{û Ji_g * g g *ç å.9 a *.K-r¡ fl $¡1 As heard befr¡re hhe Ftonore,bie l"aWfe¡iCe J. Erenner on Tr.lesclay änd Wed¡lesdayr June I a nd une 1t n 1g$? " ."T **"* Ã.e.9.8.&8.&"N.C"86¿ I{TC¡'AEL P, IbICTIdTYRE, ESQÜTR,fi FTR$T A$$J ISSAT{T ÞrSTRrCî ArTOg.T{EY For the Conr¿ûr¡weaLtl: ÐÂYL ïN tg¡tCItf E$ütI rRs For tl¡* SeËendant C{Cr* ,Sudith F4. I¡almerr RpR Off ici.atr Cou¡:t Repori:er Case ID: 190102559 j.$Ðã .Ð"9 "e a$^Ë & * w J, 3 S "g "g "a_sç¿ *ELEË &"€.ü g -Ë s PÅ$"8 cJ\Rlr frul¡Ng Ðirest Examf. nati on by totr . Le acb Cross Hxarnination b3' IlEt, T4cInt,yre Redí rect Ðxam j. nation by lrlr , I-,eaclr RecrCIss Exanrínat ios b]r B{r. ï{cI¡.rtyre I{er}irect Bxamånatiçn i:y Ftr. Leac}r å, 3t J.S3 rJ fl tbvi! "! rCI4 t_ Case ID: 190102559 MR. LEACH: Try to make it reach me, Cate. when you speak. How old are you now, Cara? A 13. okay. Where do you presently reside? Allentown. Okay. How long have you lived there? A Two years new I would say. Okay. Do you know Kathy Speech? A Yes, I do. And who is Kathy speth to you? A She is my mother- Okay. And do you know Delwyn Speth? A Yes, I do. And what is -- How do you know him? A He is my stepfather. Okay. Cara, do you know of your own knowledge whether your mother attempted to kill Delwyn Speth on February 28th? A I know my mother didn't do it. How do you know your mother didn't do did? A I did it. Now, Cara, I am going to go through this in detail with you. First. I would like to ask you a Lrase And who were you living with? A My boyfriend, Scott. 0 Were you guys married at the time? A No, we were not. 0 Okay. How did you suppozt yourself at that time? A I was dancing, I was an exotic dancer at the time. Okay. I am sorry, Cara. but what is an exotic dancer? Can, if you you can tell the jury. A We, we dance. We dance exoticaily in bars. Take our clothes off in front of strangers for a lot of money. Okay. And were you of age at. the time? A No, I was not. Then how did you manage to get into the bars to do this? A Nobody really ever asked me, you know. I, when they did, I just woulfin't work at that place. I'd go down the street. Okay. Where were you working on the evening of February 27th/28th? A I was at the Grandview Inn in Gouldsboro off of Route 380. \ì'Å L Yeair. A Iiinç3 cf l"ilqe yûu 1åed ta .a J /r 5 e E U Ttsr ntt, doíng Èha'L ir0w. F.å nei of I Í !se yçu Lied t0 yÐur st*pfet,her \¿ aþout, i:eing n*rrierf to Scot,t KinEr ri.ght? gf ibr I Y ItiçhÈr fl t3 in yçur inLereËt youi re gcing Ers 1íe¡ right? A IÌ m not gcing tor $0c $3å.¡t g have, *knyn Leb¡s Look i¡:bo thí ri anrl see íf Q A I am not så)ring Itm $aånt. I n€ver said Lha t, L8" t-J \{ Lü T} tä L_ fhat wä$r t,hat v¡,åË i¡r ¡ny iat,eIest,, $ometltir¡g LÀke Lha'k,, T wes proteci:inS myself, Pi ¿t T dörr''b t,hi¡ilr årlybrdy ås uaying Ðhat, Ï5 16 $1R., !{onc¡ r I¡BACIdc Sbjet;ticnr lour r fïr$ CûtJRtl¡ objech,åon 77 a¿t ¿(, suËtæined. 'i BY II,IR. I{C 51{TYR E ; ¿.v ü T"etç 1'¡ ¿J lnt,erest ån whetl¡er your $:sril gêås *onvicùed. ;{ I al ready sa i d llÊsr f do+ Ðo you have an int,erest? e î"4 ft s I e Âncl y0u lrave tolqi us t,ha ù d¡ 2,2 ¡rH ¿, -, a s laol+ in'eo whebher Ðr nÕt you lrave dont t want t* Ëee her rJa ån tç Jail"r rlo¡ if it,¡s in y0ur Case ID: 190102559 93 1 + ¿À 2 J ú. {t 6 "t al Ci åli t¡ '¡ 15.Ì -l ir¡'l;erest y*iå êre prCI¡:e i:û Iieo is ,chaL riEht? Va Ét <: yoir Ï¡ave varir$Ë i¡rtereËt s i¡l ttris cåsÊ¡ dønr t you? First of ð.1Lr åë 3r$u sai$ þefçre¡ yo love yÐur n¡othen ancå you lrate $e3.r,ayn speths *cc{¡rdång tr: yûrJr ri,ght? $kay o IJ Tå ¡gÞr xx, ÄlL right. ct Þ¡ les. rr fio I t,ake åL that, åf yüu !tated hÈ,m ÊhouËh to ki"l.i hånio y{rlí hat.e l"lisr enoirgir to Eei: osl thaL nit 13 wi.'Lirsös s'sand ¿ú¡ lhaL L6 'î '7 -t- I 1iï '¡q 2,û ?1 2,r. and lie it ie wouJ"d hurL !rim¡ is faår ståtement,? fi f{or þecauge I I ¡n nöt 1yf.ng. Ä1L r{ght, Lêtr sr let,¡ s analyze this $ËrÊr You habe â Ë)erËrn enougtr to kill themr tç talie a LJ their very lif e frrcm 'cheir lrodyr but yaü rlsn!t hate hir¡t enouçh tö Lie on t,he wåtnâss stand abçut, t¡Ímr ås tþ¡at wt¡at youtre teIIinE us? f.\ ft would trurt me if I wês i¡p h¡ere lyingr I dçrrr t $¡anL tq hurt, 'ßiðr ï dont t eäre abouL hi¡n at, â3 àll. Êê * i*? 2b Ifated hå¡rr enouEh tç kåLl"niuln right? I 1q idô',.r¡ ?ühat i f yûu t,houEht yêu coul d Eet âway wÍth Case ID: 190102559 Exhibit ase ID: 190102559 ( COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEHICH COUNIY. PENNSYLVANTA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA vs. ) No. l99l/llß6 ) KATHLEEN SPETH ) ) Defendant NIOTES PCRA E ) ) ) Or T[sTtMOily FnTrlrpil FrA¡rp 4pBrL r& reqg BEF'ORE THE HONONABLE LAÌT'RENCE J. BRENNER t, APPEARANCES; CHARLES SIEGER, ESQUTRE ... for tho Dcfcndant c. cl Õ C¡J l-a sË Tì Ê:-. =::. t.:,a" [flCllAEL McINTYRE, ESeUrRE ... for the Commonwe¡lth l\t (.o .a =9. Ét< s([!-: ¿ rn .E . #ñ"' t\) I,EJ r::¡ t¡l Court Monitor: Glorir Rocd Bobo Irla REtOaD F¡r.ã¡) ¡î{ supEn¡cn ocuh-f APR ã ? UOOÍ' OÍ)URÌ JUL t99g 7o Case ID: 190102559 ó I ( 2 3 4 5 6 7 I I A. a. Two and a quarrer years ago it took about e year fo¡ the rranscript to be did it no¡? Fourtcen months. Now, Kethleen. in your petition For post conviction coilater¡r Relief you've rrtegod e nur¡bcr of thingr. and I w¡nt ro go through those things with you. Okay? A. Alt right. ¡0 I (, Court's indulgence for a moment. t2 A. l3 Now. one of the things thrt you allogc in your Pclition cotrserns your Attorney, Daylin Lc¡ch, ¡nd his l4 involvemcnt with your drughtcr, corrçct? t5 A. a. A. a- l7 Í l8 t9 i a 20 ¡ 2l ! 22 ! 23 ( MR. STEGER: Wirb rhc ll tó ¡ did. And prepared, A. a. I 24 23 Yss. You ¡nd I h¡ve talkcd sbor¡t th¡t, H¿vc wc nor? Yes. And we'vc talkcd ebout thË pros and cone of following up with that ettegatio¡, h¡vc wc not? Aa. Yos. Whethcr it would be advis¡ble or -THE COURT: ttoil. lct ms ray th¡s. I rm ¡ot going to -- br¡icrlly wo rrc hcrc today. this is your hcrring. Gctting ¿nothrr onc of thc¡c po¡t Conviction Relicf Aot! onc wry or lnothcr, dcponding on Case ID: 190102559 7 tt'hat ¡ would do. I f will Ìot coms Gesy undcr the prcsent law. Today is thc time, Mrs. Spcth. If thsrG is rnything hore now is thc timc to prGsGnt thG tostimo[y. B¡¡l certainly you ¡rc frec to do rs you deem eppropriatc. 2 3 4 5 MR. STEGER: And rft¡t.s 6 wh¡t I'm attcmpting to investigrtc hçrc. ? a' Miss spcth, your daughtcr subrcqucur to your trìrr wtl chargcd with and convictod of perjury, wrg shc not? A. Ycs. I 9 t0 IftR- McINTyRE: your il Honor, rnry $ t2 ( I posG rD objcctìon? r rnow that you ryrnt to grtnt somc lecwty. Evorything h¡s bccn toading out of t3 Attorrêy Sieger. lVc should gct ¡r from t4 THE COURT: The objection to thc form ie sust!¡nGd. l5 tó I ã t MR. SIEGER; Okry. l7 a. 't8 trial Wee your daughter ohrrged t9 A. Yes. ¡ho 20 a. And wh¡t hrpponcd I 2t A. She w¡c givcn 22 yctrr probrtion. 23 A, So rhc 24 A Conviclod fclon 2S a I ( witt r crime after your ? i a I _- wrr cherged with pcrjury. ¡ tr r reeult of rh¡t? sGntencG ofthirty dayr to fivc wr¡ co¡victcd? rt eightccn yerr¡ old. yc¡. And r¡ ¡ rcruft ofth¡t htvo you rnd I t¡lkcd ¡bout Case ID: 190102559 E whether or not t ( it would bc a¡lvisrblc to continuG on with rhe allegation thrt I h¡d mentioned eerlicr? 2 A. a. yês. 5 And what wrc your decision with regard to mtÌing that allogation? 6 A. ltoll, in light 7 convicted perjurer, whicb would prevcnt eny onc from bclieving hcr to¡timony, ir rcrlly mtke¡ no scnÊG. 3 4 8 9 lo a, Okry. of rhe flcr rhrt ny drughrcr So as a rcsutt of I i¡ r convcrslt¡oû bctwocn ll yoursctf and myrclf, is it your dccision to not continuc on w¡th thrt rllcgrtion lE r -- rr r ground¡ for iucffcctivc è il l2 a8sistrnce of soun¡cl by AüorDey Lcrch? t. t3 A. a. A. a. CI l4 l5 t6 l7 t I tE t9 i a 20 ¡a 2a I I 22 wcrG two prrts __ Just thrr ono ground. (No rosponoc) Did you -- d¡d you dccidc thrt thrt one ellegrtlon, concorning Mr. Le¡ch's incffccrive t¡sistrnce of countel, would not be followcd concorning hic rllcgcd involvoncnt with your daughtcr -- scxually? A. a. YG¡, thrt porrion. Now, thc -- rnd Attorncy Lo¡ch, w¡¡ ho privato coun¡ol or trrr ho rppointcd to rcproscnt you? 23 (,. lVcll, thcro ^, Pri yttG. 24 Q. Did you pry him? 25 A" A thou¡rnd doll¡r¡. And hc rgrcGd to wl¡t for rhc Case ID: 190102559 53 t I her thc risks snd what she'd be giving up. Which I 2 believc Judge Brçnner exptained to her again the day of 3 eentenci ng. 4 At no t¡mc did I coerce hcr to withdraw 5 appeal. Thcre is no advantsgc to ms of her withdrawing ó her rppeal. And. you know. thc onty contribution I madc 7 to that 8 her 9 I know thet docsn't rddrcss ell of ir, but thrt'¡ thc onc thing I rcally wanted to say. l0 tt tð slibi to tell hcr a ûew trisl would h¡vc to be withour witness. Thc ¡econd thing -- one othor thing l3 I rcrlly wantcd to sty for the record- Uthish is thrt I, you &nov, C¡r¡ would com€ to my officc, I don't k¡ow. rclativcly t4 froquently, I'd ray çvery other week on ¡ver¡gc to drop r5 off ¡omcthing or tålk to me about hcr mon. Or shc would Ió elwayr comc with hcr mom, too, whcn hcr mom c&mc. But l7 at '{ rrlas her t2 a 20 th¡t's ¡s far es my rê¡¡tionship with hcr cvcr wGnt. A¡d. you know. ¡he told me tt thc time ¡he would csy snyth¡ng to güt out of -- to gct her morher out of thi6. And I supposc .- I don't know if thet coDtitruê¡ or trot. t I I 2l But, I just wantcd to rry thrr ¡¡ well. If tbcro i¡ I I I ( r8 t9 2Z FomG 2! ¡t, 24 2s othat issue you want olclred up, I'll bc hrppy to do MR. MoINTYRE: I've no furlhcr qüG¡t¡on¡. You mry crot¡ èx¡minG. Case ID: 190102559 Exhibit ase ID: 190102559 gsts iai I term ãt mom'$ I ourm*i Clipped from The Morning CaIl, 13 Nov 1993,-SaL Main Edition, Page 91 Case ID: 190102559 Exhibit ase ID: 190102559 lq w Èara Taylor Fnbru;lry 13 *t 13,?3;trl ' l¡t http:fÅav,w.phllly.conr/.. "lcÕil'ÌmËn. .. rTltthtk-*pinion-?Û18t'l û7.hlml Don't þe lit