Definition of Justice

Filler’s sister speaks to the Bar Panel

Dear Grievance Panel,

Vladek Filler is my brother and he is a good, honest, and caring man who fought to protect his sons.  He lived through domestic abuse, 5 ½ years of prosecutorial abuse, legal black mail, fraudulent convictions and false 21 day imprisonment. His reputation and good name has been ruined by criminal misconduct of prosecutor Mary Kellett.

I attended Mary Kellett’s October 22-23 2012 disciplinary hearing and paid close attention to the testimony and the evidence in the case.  I am writing to you because I am very concerned that attorney Kellett’s serious and malicious misconduct, as alleged and painstakingly documented in Vladek Filler’s 3 part Bar Complaint, has been omitted and even covered up from open discussion.

I urge this Grievance Commission to review Vladek Filler’s entire 3 part Complaint with exhibits and consider the evidence of misconduct that has been admitted in to evidence by the Panel but not adequately addressed or argued.  This admitted evidence must be given full weight to protect the public from Kellett’s practice as a lawyer and a prosecutor.  Given the available evidence of very serious misconduct a recommendation for mere reprimand or suspension would be grossly inadequate in protecting the administration of justice.

Many discovery records in Vladek’s case which were denied, delayed, and withheld by Mary Kellett show that her office was fully aware from the beginning that Ligia Filler made numerous exculpatory admissions, even on recordings made at the DA office, that numerous felony rape charges brought by Kellett were unjustifiable making them “unprovable[i]”.

Kellett went forward with multiple felony indictments while concealing and misrepresenting crucial evidence and admissions before the Grand Jury and numerous Judges to prosecute an innocent man.  Even after the Law Court ruled against Kellett and after the Divorce Court ruled that evidence of spousal rape could not achieve preponderance given evidence to the contrary, Kellett still announced she would retry the case to meet a beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

The record of malicious misconduct and misrepresentation in light of incredible exculpatory evidence was detailed in Vladek’s 3 part Bar Complaint and its exhibits which I strongly urge this Grievance Panel to carefully review and consider before condemning any more innocent people in Maine to such prosecutorial abuse.

At the disciplinary hearing, former Federal prosecutor George “Toby” Dilworth testified that he reviewed the trial record and found Kellett misled the jury, violated Judge Cuddy’s Ruling, presented her own testimony and allegations not in evidence, and shifted the burden of proof on defense.

Dilworth testified “[Kellett] objected to the evidence of [the child custody dispute] and then used it at closing… She excluded it and now was using it as a sword.” Dilworth then detailed what appears to be criminal misconduct by Mary Kellett of being fully aware of the importance of the police evidence she withheld which was “critical to defense”.  He stated “[this was] exculpatory information-statement of the victim of the rape.. this material must be turned over…even if the judge did not order Ellsworth American records this material should have been turned over [by Kellett].

Defense attorney Daniel Pileggi testified “I was surprised that prosecutor in this case intervened [to order Officer Wilmot not to provide his report and Ligia Filler’s statement]. I was frustrated, this was recoverable, it is clearly discoverable, and this information was directly related to the defense case. I did not understand why it was not provided.” This was exculpatory evidence Kellett withheld to this day despite Pileggi specifically requesting Ligia Filler’s statement[ii], despite Wilmot’s report explicitly stating witness statements were collected and scanned, and despite Judge Anderson Ordering Kellett to turn this and other specifically requested material over to defense.

Kellett’s claim to the panel that defense never request Ligia Filler’s written statements was clearly false, as Daniel Pileggi’s September 6, 2007 written request, subsequent requests, Motion for Discovery, and subpoena indicate.  Kellett further claims that she instructed Officer Wilmot to withhold these subpoenaed exculpatory records from defense because she asserted it was her responsibility as a prosecutor to invoke a privilege on behalf of a private citizen, Ellsworth American’s editor Stephen Fay, out of concern for his privacy.

At the February 15, 2008 hearing, as detailed in the Bar Complaint, Kellett also objected to, and asserted a privilege over release of Ligia Filler’s exculpatory medical examination records even against Ligia Filler’s own attempts to release those records (which yet another withheld discovery video tape later revealed[iii]).  Kellett blocked medical records from release then proceeded to selectively use them to misrepresent her conduct and those records to Judge Cuddy and to the jury at trial.  There appears to be a pattern of misconduct to suppress and misrepresent exculpatory evidence in order to punish an innocent man.  Is evidence of such prosecutorial misconduct only worthy of a “reprimand”?

Former prosecutor George Toby Dilworth reviewed the trial transcript and the case record and testified that “[Prosecutor Mary Kellett was] Rule 16 non compliant. [Kellett acted to] ‘Intentionally violate a rule of court.’…Bar Rule 3.6d…‘advising someone at your direction not to comply.’…Bar Rules 3.7 criminology statistics…Bar Rules 3.2f4 and 3.1a are the real problems…Bar Rule 3.7e shifting burden…exclusion of evidence at closing is just as harmful to defendant and it’s the last thing jury is hearing…Bar Rules 3.2f4, 3.2f7i…Facts are not in evidence Bar Rules 3.2f4 and 3.2.”  Attorney Dilworth’s testimony suggested that Mary Kellett engaged in intentional misconduct and violation of Court’s ruling.

As with Ellsworth Police Officer Chad Wilmot, Kellett discussed with Gouldsboro Sergeant James Malloy, the specific police reports he was subpoenaed to produce to defense. In her response to the Bar Counsel she admitted to advising Malloy that he was not obligated to turn what was clearly discoverable records over to defense despite Malloy voluntarily offering to fax these records over to defense (per admitted April 2009 audio recording of Sgt. Malloy).  Here Kellett, who was herself legally obligated to turn these same April 24, 2007 discovery reports over to defense was advising Sgt. James Malloy against providing these subpoenaed records to defense unless the Court compelled him to do so.

Attorney Daniel Pileggi repeatedly requested discovery from Kellett in writing and after 1 1/2 years and a Court Order, Kellett still refused to provide numerous records including Ligia Filler’s recorded exculpatory statements made in 911 calls and video on April 24, 2007.  In fact, Deputy Travis Willey clearly testified he had this video, previewed it, apparently possessed it even after trial and in the audio recorded phone conversation in May 2009 (5 months after trial) admitted that no one ordered him to produce anything to defense and that he could not comply with defense subpoenas without Kellett’s permission.

Dan Pileggi testified that he eventually learned this court ordered video tape was destroyed which only happens when the prosecutor specifically does not instruct police to produce it.  He further testified that he was never provided and never heard before the played 911 recordings of Ligia Filler which he would have used at trial.  Pileggi requested these recordings as they should have been part of automatic discovery.

Judge Anderson even issued an Order for Mary Kellett to provide all these April 24, 2007 recordings of Ligia Filler but Kellett never provided these vital recordings which contained stunning admissions.  The 911 recording obtained by Vladek after trial clearly showed Ligia Filler was willing to say just about anything to get police to help her regain custody of her son.

The 911 recordings featured Mrs. Filler’s own grown daughter from another relationship admitting that she told her mother she was “crazy”, that her mother failed to get custody of her brother because he wished to live with his father but that she was “waiting” to get his custody anyway by using criminal charges against his father.  Expert witness attorney Dilworth testified “I find [the 911 audio tape] to be very important…All prosecutors save 911 tapes in domestic violence cases…[Vladek Filler’s attorney] Daniel Pileggi certainly needed this [911 tape] for his defense.”

If misrepresenting the facts and evidence, violating discovery rules, ordering police to withhold subpoenaed exculpatory evidence from defense, and violating a Court Order, are not prosecutorial crimes against an innocent man, then what is?

Does such misconduct only warrant a reprimand? 

Is the prosecutorial assault on Vladek and his two son’s liberty and reputation not worth prosecutor Mary Kellett’s law license?  Given the evidence cited in the Bar Complaint there are apparently dozens, if not more, victims of Mary Kellett’s misconduct.  Allowing Kellett to continue her law practice in light of available evidence of her intentional misconduct is in itself unethical abuse of her victims and the administration of justice.

According to Mary Kellett’s own testimony before this Grievance Panel, she continues to maintain she did nothing wrong and if given a chance would do nothing differently in the future.  Based on her own statements, would reprimand or suspension change her beliefs or her future conduct?

In June of 2012, while awaiting the scheduling of her own disciplinary hearing, Kellett prosecuted two more innocent men for sexual crimes[iv].  One of the prosecuted men was yet another father who was winning a custody dispute with his wife but was unjustifiably prosecuted for sexual misconduct.  Kellett’s prosecution had a direct effect on his divorce hearing.

Asked by the Bangor Daily News, Kellett stated that so long as she and her office believe the accuser then her office is obligated to prosecute the accused in order to address the complaints.  Is that not an admission of ideology based misconduct and a violation of evidentiary threshold required by the Bar Rules for criminal prosecutions?

Mary Kellett continued to conduct and promote such prosecutions irrespective of the strength or weakness of the evidence or of her own pending disciplinary hearing.

Defense attorney Daniel Pileggi, based on his personal knowledge of Kellett’s interference in the Fillers’ DHHS child protection case, Guardian Ad Litem’s investigation, and misrepresentation of evidence, as detailed in the admitted Bar Complaint, made a very profound statements on the admitted trial record that “the district attorney [Mary Kellett…] has taken sides in a custody dispute.  [The State of Maine with all its power and authority represented by Mary Kellett] has ignored a doctor’s testimony, the only doctor that we have.  [The State represented by Kellett] has ignored a series of interviews with Ligia Filler in April 2007 that rose to the crescendo of child abuse – child abuse[!]” (Trial Transcript Page 458).  Dan Pileggi openly suggested Mary Kellett abused her State prosecutorial power, ignored evidence of truth and of accuser’s own exculpatory admissions, in favor of helping a female child abuser regain child custody from an innocent man.

Based on such evidence it appears prosecutor Mary Kellett willfully, despite medical evidence, DHHS and GAL findings, and accuser’s own taped admissions brought false class A felony rape charges and withheld evidence of innocence to send an innocent man to prison in order to send his children to their child abusive mother.

Does a reprimand or a suspension hold Kellett to those higher standards given the nature and evidence of misconduct?  The only just and ethical remedy is a recommendation for attorney Mary Kellett’s disbarment.  The Law Court will be required to review the evidence and make a final decision, but to allow Kellett to only be reprimanded given the admitted and available evidence would be unjust, unethical, and a failure of the Board’s responsibility to protect the public.

According to a recent Center for Public integrity non partisan report,Maine is named the number 5 most corrupt state for failing to hold its public officials to ethical standards.  As a prosecutor granted extraordinary power over people’s lives, Mary Kellett is required by rules to be held to higher standards than private attorneys.

In July of 2012 the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar reprimanded Machias attorney Jeffrey Davidson for making an inappropriate rape joke to a female police officer.  The Board found that his use of the “word ‘rape’ in this setting was unsettling to [his acquaintance Lt. Mary Zidalis] as well as unprofessional and prejudicial to the administration of justice”[v].  If the use of the word “rape” in a joke was found to be prejudicial to administration of justice warranting a lawyers reprimand, then what is the appropriate penalty for prosecuting someone for 5 false counts of rape after withholding evidence of their innocence?

After advising numerous police officers to withhold subpoenaed evidence and refusing to comply with a court order for clearly relevant and exculpatory evidence?  How does Mary Kellett’s intentionally misleading, false, and deceptive statements to judges, the jury, and to the Law Court compare to other attorney’s misconduct and prejudice to the administration of justice?  How does prosecutor Mary Kellett’s “disingenuous”[vi] and unapologetic stance before the Board of Overseers of the Bar reconcile her misconduct in seeking to punish an innocent man with up to 152 years in prison?

This kind of abuse of power and of citizens is the reason prosecutors like Mary Kellett must be held to higher standards as the law and ethics rules stipulate and demand the Grievance Panel to do.  Laws, ethics codes, and the US Constitution are there to protect people’s Rights and now this Grievance Panel has the duty and responsibility to stand up for those laws, those codes of conduct, and for our Constitution by recommending nothing less than attorney Mary Kellett’s disbarment.

Above all other duties, the Bar Rules and Grievance Process are intended to protect the lives and rights of people from irreparable harm caused by the kind of misconduct of which attorney Mary Kellett is accused.  No attorney is more worthy of disbarment than the one which maliciously betrays evidence of truth and violates rules to deprive people of their liberty, reputation, and Constitutional Rights.

The available evidence and testimony demonstrates that Mary Kellett knowingly and maliciously violated rules for her own philosophical and ideological reasons.  That is what has been presented by Vladek Filler’s complaint, supported by his testimony, and the testimony of former Federal Prosecutor George T. Dilworth, and defense attorney Daniel Pileggi.

I urge this Grievance Panel to step up to its ethical responsibility and do right by the people of Maine, by Vladek Filler, by his family, and by all the Maine prosecutors and attorneys who are now looking to the Board of Overseers of the Bar to unconditionally honor and enforce the same rules and codes of conduct which they are required to abide by.

[i] Per Bar Complaint’s quote of appellate attorney Neil L. Fishman’s statements in the brief to theLaw Court following the review of the record.

[ii] Beginning onSeptember 6, 2007, defense attorney Daniel Pileggi began specifically requesting in writing  the April 11, 2007 Police report and Ligia Filler’s written statement. Weeks later he filed a discovery non compliance motion for these same reports and written statements.  OnJune 3, 2008, Judge Anderson granted the motion for these and other records and recordings and Ordered Mary Kellett to provide them to defense which she did not.

[iii] Mary Kellett denied and withheld repeatedly requested May  25, 2007 video taped interview of Ligia Filler for a year until June 2008 when defense specifically proved to Kellett that her office made the video and again demanded a copy.  The video revealed shocking exculpatory admissions by Ligia Filler proving Kellett knowingly obtained false indictments for rape, withheld medical evidence, and misrepresented facts to numerous judges.



[vi] Bar Counsel Scott Davis’s characterization in the Petition of Mary Kellett’s claims in responses to the complaint.

About Tatyana

Tatyana is the sister of Vladek Filler, the man who has been the subject of a 5 1/2 years long campaign of legal terror at the hands of Ellsworth, Maine prosector Mary Kellett

View All Posts
  • Dean Esmay

    I am shocked and appalled that a publication such as A Voice for Men would dare to question the actions of a court or a prosecutor. Who are we to think that the press and/or ordinary citizens are entitled to scrutinize, criticize, and petition government officials (like judges and prosecutors) for redress of grievance?

    Oh uhm, wait a minute, I think there’s an amendment somewhere in that there Constitution about that. I’m not sure I remember which one, but I’m pretty sure it’s somewhere in the top 1 or so.

    Prayers for justice for Vladek and his children, Tatyana.

    • Ray

      “I am shocked and appalled that a publication such as A Voice for Men would dare to question the actions of a court or a prosecutor. Who are we to think that the press and/or ordinary citizens are entitled to scrutinize, criticize, and petition government officials (like judges and prosecutors) for redress of grievance?”

      Outrageous assumptions indeed!!!

      I was looking at one of the new ten dollar bills today and to the right of Hamilton’s smiling face, or is it smirking, there are those words writ large – “WE THE PEOPLE.”


      OUTRAGEOUS, I thought to myself. Just because those words begin the U.S. Constitution, some Yahoo in the Treasury Dept. wants to underscore that “we the people” are the true power of government.

      This is 2012, not 1776, obviously, there’s been a printing error in the Treasury department and those bills should be sent back and destroyed by the T-men.

      Obviously, as shown by Maine’s example thus far in the Kellett case, new bills should be printed that say, “WE THE PROSECUTORS,” and “WE THE JUDGES.”

      We cannot tolerate ordinary people questioning dictators, or what will be next, people actually expecting justice? :-/ sarcasm off

  • Stu

    Well, the radical feminist system makes at least one more female enemy for itself, a lot more I’ll bet.

    I take some comfort in knowing that with each man fed into the court sponsored radical feminist meat grinder, numerous new enemies are created for their ideology and the legal system that supports it.

  • Paul Elam

    And for those interested, there is still the opportunity to make your voices heard in this critical matter. Fire up those keyboards, gents and ladies. They may be running a rigged game, but they don’t have the power to silence those who will call them on it.

    Panel Chair M. Ray Bradford, Jr., Esq.
    50 Columbia Street #73
    Bangor, ME 04401-6331
    Tel. (207) 947-0173
    Fax: (207) 941-6713

    Sarah McPartland-Good Esq.
    University Of Maine Foundation
    2 Alumni Place
    Orono, ME 04469
    (207) 581-5110

    Non-attorney Panel Member:
    Norman A. Ross
    114 Wintergreen Ct
    Hampden, ME 04444-1656
    Tel. (207) 862-3399
    No email available.

    Board of Overseers of the Bar
    97 Winthrop Street, P. O. Box 527
    Augusta, Maine 04332-0527
    Tel. (207) 623-1121
    Fax (207) 623-4175

    35 Hildreth Street
    Bangor, ME 04401
    Phone: 207-947-8321 Newsroom – Ext. 5
    Fax: 207-941-9378

    Channel 7 & 22
    371-Target Industrial Circle
    Bangor, ME 04401
    Tel. (207) 945-6457 Ex 3122
    Fax: 207-942-0511
    News and Stories Email:

    Maine Public Broadcasting Network
    Reporter: Jay Field
    Phone: 800-884-1717
    Press Released E-mail: NEWS@560WGAN.COM
    Program and News Director – Jeff Wade
    News Tel: (207) 761-5600
    News Fax: (207) 761-7765

    Bangor Daily News Ellsworth Bureau
    Bill Trotter
    Bangor Daily News Reporter
    Nicholas McCrea
    Bangor Daily News Court Reporter
    Judy Harrison

    Bangor Daily News
    491 Main Street
    P.O. Box 1329
    Bangor, Maine 04402-1329
    Michael J Dowd, Editor-in-Chief
    Tel (207) 990-8238

    Ellsworth American Reporter
    Mark Good
    The Ellsworth American.
    30 Water Street
    Ellsworth, ME 04605
    Tel. (207) 667-2576
    Stephen Fay Editor

  • Ray

    Can I as a citizen of the United States specifically order that my tax dollars not be spent in Maine, or better yet, that Maine’s statehood be revoked? If so, consider it ordered. They’ve more than done enough to deserve it.

    • Augen

      No, but you can make a complete copy of Tatyana’s letter, send it to various authorities in Maine including Robert Nutting the Speaker of the Maine House of Reps, Kevin Raye the President of the Senate and the office of Paul LaPage, the governor, and inform them in a short, attached letter that you will take into account of the inability of the state of Maine to govern itself according to common American norms when making any economic decisions where the state has a stake in the outcome.

      I personally would both yellow-highlight and re-quote these words in the short accompanying missive:

      “If misrepresenting the facts and evidence, violating discovery rules, ordering police to withhold subpoenaed exculpatory evidence from defense, and violating a Court Order, are not prosecutorial crimes against an innocent man, then what is?
      “Does such misconduct only warrant a reprimand?
      “Is the prosecutorial assault on Vladek and his two son’s liberty and reputation not worth prosecutor Mary Kellett’s law license? Given the evidence cited in the Bar Complaint there are apparently dozens, if not more, victims of Mary Kellett’s misconduct. Allowing Kellett to continue her law practice in light of available evidence of her intentional misconduct is in itself unethical abuse of her victims and the administration of justice.”

      • Augen

        Making powerful arguments at this stage doesn’t matter. I don’t think a more powerful argument can be waged other than Tatyana’s excellent letter. When dealing with politics and corruption like this you move past it and calmly make two things clear:

        1. This will not blow over
        2. This will keep getting more and more expensive

        Then you remind. Over and over again.

    • Augen

      Then follow it up with postcards …

      I.e.: “re: my letter to you of 4-Dec 2012, SUBJECT: Maine’s efforts to protect a corrupt prosecutor…there was a business trip opportunity to Maine today. What with electronic meetings and all, we found a way around it. Cost of protecting a corrupt prosecutor: 4 business trvaelers X $750 expenses = $3000″.


      “…considered some contractors. One was based in Maine. That’s unfortunate the contact went to Vermont. Cost … $350,000″


      “We were considering opening a local site/distribution office/sales center/ etc … Rhode Island looked better. Annual dollars not spent in Maine, $X million.”

      Pretty soon the cost of protecting corrupt prosecutors adds up and real people, in Maine, start paying that cost.

  • Ray

    Wouldn’t it be nice to create some Maine tourism commercials:

    Don’t worry about Mexican drug cartels, when you have Maine’s legal system, using government to take lives.

    Maine – – – visit it – – – only when hell is full.

  • Codebuster

    I’ve had long, drawn-out issues with administrative and government agencies. They have “Codes of Conduct” and “Policy” standards spelled out. I had wondered why issues had taken so long to resolve, and I had wondered how they could make the decisions that they did in contravention of their cherished codes of conduct and policies. I had my suspicions, but in the absence of evidence, you could never be too sure.

    But I get it now, and this saga with Vladek Filler is bringing it into sharp relief. They’ve always had the power. Even on the other side of the globe, administration’s constraints extend only as far the people’s willingness to make a stand. In administration, any semblance of being “reasonable” and “fair” was only ever a front. Window dressing. They’ve always had the power, and they will always do whatever they want. Feminism, with its momentum of leftist groupthink, forced them to pretend to be more “transparent” and “accountable” LOL. Also, as the lesser of two evils (between feminism versus democracy), they correctly ascertained that feminist ideology can be implemented to their own ends… true democratic principles, by contrast, would be more likely to thwart their ambitions.

    The chickens are coming home to roost. The administrators in power are revealling their true colours. They’re saying “fuck our cherished codes of conduct, fuck our policy, and fuck you, we’re going to do what we want.” It’s a free-for-all, and they are going to fight any of this Vladek Filler saga entrenching itself as a precedent that might be implemented across the nation.

    In the face of the atrocities being perpetrated against Vladek Filler, a rape joke is worthy of a reprimand?

    But what do we expect? Mitt Romney promised to take the US Constitution seriously, while Barack Obama promised that democracy was a conversation to be had. No matter what we might think of the two-party system and the two main parties, I think that the principles in the US Constitution were the most valuable thing that the American system had going for it… it probably held the greatest promise for Filler’s situation, because it held within it the mechanisms to formally assert a block to this kind of injustice. With democracy now relegated to the status of a conversation, good luck taking this through the higher courts. Americans voted. Now lie in it.

  • Kimski

    I wish my sisters were a lot more like Tatyana.

    I’m not even going to say what I wish for Mary Kellett. It would break all known records, when it comes to offensive language.

  • Suz

    Great and thorough letter.

    • Codebuster

      That it is. Covers all bases. The rape joke reprimand puts it in context… I mean, where do their priorities lie?

  • Adam

    Hello Tatyana,
    I offer my sympathy to your brother Vladek and your family as he still subjected to this ordeal. Over the last year we have all been spectator to this extreme prosecutorial abuse and I hope it swiftly comes to an end meting justice to ADA Ms Kellett, her boss and supporter in crime DA Ms Bassano and their inglorious white knight ADA partner.

    Perhaps when its all over, we could make an epic out of this in the style of Homer’s Illiad, to remind everyone of just what is possible. The stories I’ve heard regarding Maine’s Bar seem to evoke a similar unreal image of demons and foul play.

    Best wishes