Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan prevented the state's investigation of Dr. King effectively keeping him from prosecution.
A gag-and-seal order dated October 28th, 2004 was entered to seemingly protect children from media exposure in case number FD-01-001363 of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Family Division. This order was actually used to protect the court-appointed custody evaluator, Dr. Mark E. King, from a private complaint which was filed with the State Board of Psychology against him by the mother, Valette Clark, and the children from the case.
Dr. King (who was the mandated reporter in the case) had not reported sexual abuse that was reported to him on April 1st, 2002 by Michael Clark during a custody evaluation. The sexual abuse reported to Dr. King in 2002 ultimately resulted in criminal charges in 2005 with a subsequent conviction against Michael Clark’s father, Dr. Kevin D. Clark. Dr. King was the CEO of a company known as Allegheny Forensics Association Custody Division, a company which holds an exclusive contract to conduct all child custody evaluations in Allegheny County.
The Clark family filed a complaint against Dr. King on January 3rd, 2006 after Dr. King refused to report sexual abuse to authorities in 2002 and later refused to recommend protection of the minor-victims through the criminal case in 2005.
The same Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Bureau of Occupational and Professional Affairs who covered up for and protected Dr. Mark E. King for non reporting to make a profit, railroaded Dr. Jim Singer for doing his job and protecting a child by reporting suspected abuse. See: http://www.dailykos.com/...
THE INVESTIGATION & THE FIRST CONFERENCE
Professional Conduct Investigator John Kilkeary (“PCI Kilkeary”) contacted Dr.
King to investigate the complaint in August, 2006. PCI Kilkeary was informed by Dr.
King that there was a gag order and a seal in place which was preventing him from
discussing the case. What Dr. King told PCI Kilkeary is that he was included in the
same gag order entered on October 28th, 2004. Dr. King was enraged after learning of
the complaint and requested a conference with Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan and the
attorneys from the case in order to report the plaintiff to the court for filing the
complaint against him which he claimed was in violation of the gag order (it should be
noted that Dr. King was not a party in the case and had no standing to request for a
conference). Judge Mulligan granted Dr. King’s request and scheduled an in-person conference with:
· The defendant’s attorney from the Family Division case, Mark R. Alberts;
· The plaintiff’s attorney from the same case, C. Kurt Mulzet;
· Dr. King; and
· Judge Mulligan herself.
In the conference, Judge Mulligan told Dr. King that she couldn’t sanction the
plaintiff on his behalf because it could only be done by a party in the case and
continued to tell him that she will wait for a motion from the defendant. The
defendant ultimately did not file that motion.
THE SECOND CONFERENCE
In February of 2007, the investigation officially proceeded, but Prosecuting
Attorney Kenneth J. Suter couldn't actually investigate because he couldn't access any
records from the case as it was sealed. PCI Kilkeary contacted Judge Mulligan to ask
her to provide him with a copy of the gag order so that he could verify whether Dr.
King was actually included. Judge Mulligan instead called for a phone conference in
order to discuss how she will provide PCI Kilkeary with the gag order. Judge Mulligan
included:
· The defendant’s attorney from the Family Division case, Mark R. Alberts (who
was unrelated to this matter, but was dragged in by Judge Mulligan);
· The plaintiff’s attorney from the same case, C. Kurt Mulzet (who was also
unrelated, but was dragged in by Judge Mulligan);
· Dr. King; and
· Judge Mulligan herself.
The plaintiff’s attorney emailed the plaintiff to say that he would remind the
court that he does not represent her in the matter of the complaint against Dr. King
and that he would also take the position that the gag order does not apply to Dr. King
in this situation. Dr. King is not mentioned in the gag order.
THE ORDER
On February 21st, 2007, Judge Mulligan agreed to give PCI Kilkeary the requested
gag order to confirm that Dr. King wasn’t included in the gag order. However, on
February 22nd, 2007, Judge Mulligan sent a letter to both attorneys and Dr. King
stating the following:
“Please be advised that after our phone conversation on February 21, I spoke to the
Pa. Department of State investigator, Mr. Kilkeary. I confirmed to him that the record
in the case was sealed. Contrary to our previous discussions, I did not provide
him with a copy of the order because that would have been part of the sealed record.
He said he would pass the information to Harrisburg to see if they wished to take any
further action.”
And so, Dr. King was being protected by a gag order that does not have his name
on it, and the Judge was refusing to show the state a certified copy of that sealed
order. On March 8th, 2007, the plaintiff presented a motion before Judge Mulligan to
release the sealed, certified records for the state in order to complete the
investigation of the complaint filed by the plaintiff against Dr. King. However, that
same day, the Judge issued an order refusing to release the records and additionally barred the plaintiff from providing any sealed records to prove the complaint on her own.
In the order, the court did allow Dr. King to obtain any and all records from
the sealed case in order to defend himself from the complaint (while no request was
actually made by Dr. King to do this). In addition, the Judge barred the two adult
children (Michael and Jennifer Clark) from speaking to PCI Kilkeary and further
clarified that the two minor children (Phillip and Kristina Clark) were also barred
from speaking to PCI Kilkeary because they were still under the gag order (which was
originally meant to protect those children). The last provision of the order allowed
the state to file their own motion for the sealed records if they wanted to
investigate the complaint filed against Dr. King.
After this order, Executive Deputy Chief Counsel Peter V. Marks, Sr. explained
in a letter that the investigation of the complaint against Dr. King couldn't be
initiated originally because the Family Division case was sealed, but he further
explained that the complaint could now be investigated because the state was permitted to do so by the order. The case was then reopened and given a new case number.
THE MOTION
On September 17th, 2007, a motion was filed by Prosecuting Attorney Kenneth J.
Suter requesting the sealed records from the Family Division in order to investigate
the complaint filed against Dr. King. On September 24th, 2007, a response to the
request for records was filed by Robert Hoffman Esq. in the Family Division case on
behalf of Dr. King (it should be noted that Mr. Hoffman had no standing to file
anything in the Family Division case as Dr. King was still not a party).
After that, several months went by while Judge Mulligan simply ignored the
motion for the release of records. Subsequently, the plaintiff contacted Mr. Suter by
email on January 8th, 2008 to ask him why the state had allowed the Judge to ignore the request. He contacted Judge Mulligan who informed Mr. Suter that she would be
arranging a conference call with several parties to discuss whether the sealed records
would be released.
THE THIRD CONFERENCE
The Judge did arrange that conference call to discuss whether to release the
sealed records requested by the state and it was held on January 24th, 2008. The Judge included:
· Dr. King’s attorney, Robert Hoffman;
· The defendant’s attorney from the Family Division case, Mark R. Alberts (who
was still unrelated to this matter);
· Prosecuting Attorney Kenneth J. Suter;
· The plaintiff in the matter, Valette Clark; and
· Judge Mulligan herself.
The Judge requested that the plaintiff, Valette Clark, give a copy of her
private complaint that was filed with the state to the attorneys and to the Judge so
that they could all decide if the complaint merited the release of the records. So,
the attorney for Dr. King would be deciding whether his client, Dr. King, would be
investigated by the state. The plaintiff initially agreed as Mr. Suter fell silent
during the call, however, after consulting with an attorney, the plaintiff refused to release her private complaint. Mr. Hoffman promptly responded in a letter to the court
(it should be noted that Mr. Hoffman still had no standing to file anything in the
Family Division case as Dr. King was still not a party).
THE FOURTH CONFERENCE & THE CLOSING OF THE CASE
On February 7th, 2008, another conference call was arranged by the Judge in
order to threaten the plaintiff by refusing to release the sealed records to Mr. Suter
anyway should the plaintiff refuse to provide her private complaint. This call
included:
· Dr. King’s attorney, Robert Hoffman;
· The defendant’s attorney from the Family Division case, Mark R. Alberts (who
was yet again unrelated to this matter);
· Prosecuting Attorney Kenneth J. Suter;
· The plaintiff in the matter, Valette Clark; and
· Judge Mulligan herself.
Ultimately, the plaintiff still refused.
Subsequently, the Judge entered an order releasing some of the requested
records. However, a letter came from Mr. Suter on May 21st, 2008 which stated that he was closing the case because of insufficient evidence. The plaintiff then contacted
the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General to dispute the closing of the case and
cited the missing records that were not produced by the Judge. The case was officially
reopened on June 10th, 2008 by Senior Prosecutor in Charge Julia A. Feld Caralle. The
case was then swiftly closed again however after a phone call by Prosecuting Attorney
Bernadette Paul. Ms. Paul said that the statute of limitations had run its course, and
that she was forced to close the case permanently.
This is another instance in which the gag-and-seal order (which was originally
entered to protect the children from media exposure) was used to protect a mandated
reporter from suffering consequences for not reporting sexual abuse that the child victims reported to him years prior.