Secret judicial ruling blocks release of sexually explicit emails |

Secret judicial ruling blocks release of sexually explicit emails

H.Geoffrey Moulton, a law professor and former federal prosecutor, investigated the handling of the Jerry Sandusky case by the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office. He reviewed 20 million deleted emails that office staff recovered.

HARRISBURG — An unnamed judge issued an order blocking an open records law request by the Tribune-Review for emails and links to sexually explicit images reportedly shared by top staffers of the Attorney General’s Office.

“Your Right-to-Know request cannot be responded to because a judge has issued a stay,” Renee Martin, acting communications director for Attorney General Kathleen Kane, said on Friday.

Martin said she could not divulge the judge’s name or the court delaying the request.

It’s not known how the records request landed in court.

The Trib filed the request on July 7, seeking “emails or email attachments” containing “pornographic images” sent by former and current office members on their official state email accounts.

The newspaper asked for such emails that may have been reviewed by Special Deputy Geoffrey Moulton, who examined more than 20 million deleted emails in a look at how then-Attorney General Tom Corbett handled the case of convicted pedophile Jerry Sandusky as attorney general. Corbett, a Shaler Republican, is seeking a second term as governor.

Kane directed staff members to recover the deleted emails.

“Obviously, the governor would not condone that. It’s the first I’ve heard of it,” said Mike Barley, Corbett’s campaign manager.

No one has asserted that Corbett received any of the reputed emails.

Corbett’s office spokesman, Jay Pagni, declined comment, saying he was unable to reach others to address it.

Moulton could not be reached.

Sources tell the Trib the emails exist and that some contain sexually explicit materials intended as humor. They are described as a range of materials from joking comments and caricatures to images of nude adults and sexual situations.

No one interviewed would speak publicly about the emails.

Policy on computer use prohibits “communicating, accessing, viewing, downloading or storing materials on Office of Attorney General resources,” including “any suggestive, pornographic or obscene material.”

Corbett signed the policy as attorney general in 2006. It remains in effect, Kane’s office said.

Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law process begins with a request to a government agency, which has five business days to respond with information or invoke a 30-day extension. The requester can appeal a denial to the Office of Open Records, which decides whether the record can be released. Either party can appeal that decision to the courts.

Kane’s office requested a 30-day extension on the Trib’s request, then informally asked for more time and negotiated Aug. 21 as a due date for a decision.

Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, said if a judge ordered a stay, the office should provide a copy of the order or docket number.

“If they wanted to bypass the Office of Open records and file a declaratory action, they’d have to file in Commonwealth Court,” she said. “But that would be docketed, and it wouldn’t be done by an anonymous judge.”

She was aware of only one case that went before a judge instead of the open records office.

The Pennsylvania State Employees Association wanted to protect members’ home addresses from release under the law before anyone filed a request.

Circumventing the process is disturbing, Melewsky said. “When an agency doesn’t follow a statute it’s a matter of public concern.”

A criminal investigation or a grand jury probe also can block a request for information.

“I don’t believe there are any (Freedom of Information Act) laws in the country that say when the information is embarrassing or difficult to release it should be closed,” said Gene Policinski, senior vice president of the First Amendment Center at the Newseum Institute.

He said it is rare for the court process to be cloaked in secrecy. Any reason not to disclose the material should be made public, he said.

“But absent public explanation or a public trail, people are left to speculate on whether or not this secrecy is in the best interest of the public,” Policinski said.

Generally, pornography isn’t illegal if the images involve adults, said Wes Oliver, a Duquesne University Law School professor.

“If there’s no aesthetic, scientific or artistic value to something the community would deem patently offensive, then theoretically it can be prosecuted. But given ever-increasing access to pornography, fewer and fewer things would be deemed patently offensive to the community,” Oliver said. “As a practical matter, most prosecutors don’t bring such cases.”

Sandusky, 70, a former Penn State University assistant football coach, is serving a 30- to 60-year prison term for sexually abusing 10 boys. The case drew international attention and led to the firing of longtime football Coach Joe Paterno and unprecedented NCAA sanctions on the university.

To fulfill a campaign promise, Kane hired Moulton to review whether Corbett delayed the Sandusky investigation to get past the 2010 gubernatorial election. Moulton, a former federal prosecutor and law school professor, found that Corbett did not drag out the case for political reasons.

Kane, elected in 2012, is the state’s first Democratic and first female attorney general.

Voters twice elected Corbett to the state’s top law enforcement job. He served from 2005 to 2011.

Corbett’s challenger in the November election is Democratic nominee Tom Wolf, a York County businessman.

Brad Bumsted and Melissa Daniels are Trib Total Media staff writers. Reach Bumsted at 717-787-1405 or [email protected] and Daniels at 412-380-8511 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.