for the district of columbia · united states district court for the district of columbia...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Plaintiff,

))

))

)

)) Civil Action No. 11-cv-0374 (RLW)

)

)

)

)

)

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY ANDETHICS IN WASHINGTON,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Defendant.

DECLARATION OF KRISTIN L. ELLIS

I, Kristin 1. Ellis, declare the following to be a true and correct statement of facts:

i. I am a Deputy Chief in the Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act

(FOIA/PA) Unit of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division (CRM),

where I have worked since May 2010. Due to my current position and my previous

position as a Trial Attorney in CRM's FOIA/PA Unit, I am aware of the practices and

procedures generally employed by CRM's FOIA/PA Unit in responding to requests for

information under the FOIA and/or Privacy Act. My duties include providing litigation

support and assistance to Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) and DOJ Civil Division

(CIV) Trial Attorneys who represent DOJ in lawsuits filed in Federal court under the

FOIA and/or Privacy Act stemming from requests for CRM records. In carrying out my

duties, I review processing files compiled by CRM's FOlAiPA Unit in responding to

information requests to determine whether searches for records were properly conducted

and whether decisions to withhold or release CRM records were in accordance with the

Page i of i 1

Case 1:11-cv-00374-RLW Document 13-2 Filed 09/16/11 of 79

FOIA, the Privacy Act, and DOl regulations at 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.1 et seq. and §§ 16.40 et

seq. If searches are incomplete and/or records have not been processed, I ensure that

searches are completed and either process or oversee the processing of responsive records

by FOIA/PA Unit staff members. I regularly consult with the FOIA/PA Unit Chief and

staff members of the Unit about the processing of requests. I also consult with officials

and employees in CRM sections where responsive records are located, and with officials

and employees in other DOl components and/or Federal agencies that have equities in

responsive records.

2. I have been employed as an attorney by the Federal Government since

February 1998. From February 1998 until May 2010, I was employed by the U.S. Office

of Special Counsel (OSC), where my duties included, inter alia, enforcing the FOIA's

sanction provision, which provides for disciplining agency officials who arbitrarily and

capriciously withhold information requested under the FOIA, see 5 U.S.C. § 1216(a)(3)

and 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(F) (from February 1998 to May 2007); serving as the principal

legal advisor to OSC's FOIA Offce and Chief FOIA Offcer (from May 2007 to May

2010); and working with AUSAs/CIV Trial Attorneys to defend OSC's interests in FOIA

litigation (also from May 2007 to May 2010).

3. I have been licensed by the State Bar of Michigan since 1997.

4. I am familiar with the processing of the particular FOIA request at issue in

this litigation. I have reviewed the FOIA/PA Unit's processing fie (i.e., the fie opened

upon receipt of the FO IA request in which all documents related to the processing of the

request are maintained). I have also worked closely with attorneys in the CRM section

possessing responsive records - the Public Integrity Section regarding the location,

of 1 1

Case 1:11-cv-00374-RLW Document 13-2 Filed 09/16/11 Page 2 of 79

nature, and volume of records. Finally, I have consulted with personnel in the Executive

Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), the other defendant in this case.

5. The statements that follow are made on the basis of my review ofCRM's

official files and records, my own personal knowledge, and information I acquired in

performing my official duties.

ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY OF PLAINTIFF'S FOIA REQUEST

6. Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to CRM, dated September 27,2010.

Plaintiff requested:

(A)ll records of the Criminal Division including, but not limited to,records of the Public Integrity Section, pertaining to the invcstigation andprosecution of Paul J. Magliocchetti, the founder and owner of PM AGroup, Inc., for false statements, making ilegal conduit campaigncontributions, making illegal corporate campaign contributions, and anyother charges at issue in United States of America v. Paul J Magliocchetti,Crim. NO.1: 10-cr-287 (E.D. Va.)

A true and accurate copy of plaintiff s request is attached as Exhibit 1.

7. Plaintiff asked for expedited processing of its request based on DOl FOIA

regulation 28 C.F.R. § 16.S(d)(ii), which provides that requests wil be taken out of order

and given expedited treatment when there is "(a)n urgency to inform the public about an

actual or alleged federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in

disseminating information." See id. at p. 4.

8. CRM acknowledged receipt ofplaintifts request and granted its request

for expedited processing in a letter dated September 30, 2010. A true and accurate copy

of CRM' s letter is attached as Exhibit 2.

9. In a letter dated October 15,2010, CRM notified plaintiff that we had

located records responsive to its request and that we were withholding them in full

of11


pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(A) due to an on-going enforcement proceeding. A true

and accurate copy of CRM' s letter is attached as Exhibit 3.

10. In a letter dated October 28, 2010, plaintiff appealed CRM's decision to

DOl's Office ofInformation Policy (OIP). A true and accurate copy of plaintiffs letter

is attached as Exhibit 4.

1 1. OIP acknowledged receipt of plaintiff s appeal in a letter dated November

4, 20l O. A true and accurate copy of OIP's letter is attached as Exhibit S.

12. On February 14,2011, plaintiff fied the present lawsuit in the United

States District Court for the District of Columbia. See Docket ("Dkt.") NO.1.

13. On March 18,2011, OIP remanded the request to CRM for further

processing to determine whether any records were not subject to withholding under

Exemption 7(A). A true and accurate copy of OIP's letter is attached as Exhibit 6.

14. Following initiation of this lawsuit, Plaintiff advised Government counsel

that it was willing to narrow its request to exclude publicly available information as well

as grand jury materials subject to FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e).

JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-DISCLOSURE

15. Upon further assessment of plaintiff s request, CRM has concluded that

because it involves a request for third party law enforcement records, it should be denied

in order to protect Mr. Magliocchetti's substantial privacy interests. It is CRM's current

practice to deny access to law enforcement records about a third party in the absence of

written consent by the third party to disclose his records or proof of his death, unless

plaintiff establishes a public interest that would override the individual's privacy

of 11


interests. CRM predicates this response on the Privacy Act in conjunction with FOIA

Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

16. The Privacy Act prohibits disclosure of any record contained in a system

of records absent a written request by, or written consent of, the individual about whom

the record pertains, unless disclosure is required by the FOIA, 5 US.C. § 552a(b)(2), or

is permitted by any of the other eleven exceptions listed in the Act. 5 U.S.C.

§ S52a(b)(l), (3) - (12). The Privacy Act does not apply when an individual is deceased.

See OMB Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. 28,948, 28,951 (July 9, 1975) and Crumpton v.

United States, 843 F.Supp. 751, 756 (D.D.C. 1994), afJ'd on other grounds sub nom.

Crumpton v. Stone, 59 FJd 1400 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

17. Criminal case files maintained by the Criminal Division are part of a DOl

Privacy Act System of Records. Plaintiff has not provided written consent from

Mr. Magliocchetti for access to his records, nor has it established that Mr. Magliocchetti

is deceased. Under such circumstances, CRM will analyze the request to determine

whether disclosure is required under the FOIA, see 5 US.C. § S52a(b )(2), and in

particular, whether the records are exempt under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

18. Under current practice in response to a request for third party law

enforcement records where written consent or proof of death are lacking, CRM will issue

a so-called "Glomar" response in conjunction with FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C). The

Glomar response neither confirms nor denies the existence of responsive records because

to do so would itself undermine the third party's privacy interests, contrary to FOIA

Exemptions 6 and 7(C). However, when an investigation has been publicly

acknowledged by the Criminal Division in some fashion (e.g., through a public

of 11


indictment or a press release), CRM will not rely on the "Glomar" response, but rather

will categorically deny access to the records based on FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

19. Exemption 7(C) permits withholding records or information compiled for

law enforcement purposes where disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 5 US.C. § 5S2(b)(7)(C). Exemption 6

permits withholding personnel, medical, and similar files where disclosure would

constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 5 US.C. § 552(b)(6).

When invoked in relation to information in law enforcement records, Exemption 6

basically covers the same information as Exemption 7(C), although the burden for

establishing application of Exemption 6 is generally considered to be higher. Under

either exemption, an individual's privacy interests wil prevail unless outweighed by the

public's interest in disclosure.

20. Personal information about individuals in law enforcement records

characteristically tips the scales against disclosure and courts have found such

information to be categorically exempt from disclosure in response to FOIA requests for

third-party law enforcement information. Indeed, "the Supreme Court has made clear

that requests for such third party information are strongly disfavored." Martin v.

Department of Justice, 488 F.3d 446, 457 (D.C. Cir. 2007), reh 'g en banc denied, Aug. 3,

2007, citing Us. Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Cmte. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S.

749,774 (1989). Individuals have strong privacy interests in law enforcement records

because members of the public are likely to draw adverse inferences from this fact, and

cast them in an unfavorable or negative light. References connecting individuals to law

enforcement investigations will engender comment, speculation, and potentially

of 11


harassment, and can be embarrassing and stigmatizing. Accordingly, individuals

mentioned in law enforcement fies maintain strong privacy interests in not having their

personal information disclosed.

This privacy interest "encompass(es) the individual's control of information

concerning his or her person." Reporters Cmt., 489 US. at 763. More specifically, it

protects the right of individuals "to determine for themsclvcs when, how, and to what

extent information about them is communicated to others." Id. at 764 (citations omitted).

The fact that an event is not completely private, or that there has been a prior public

disclosure of personal information, does not extinguish an individual's interest in limiting

disclosure or dissemination of information about himself. Further, "the public nature of

court records does not eliminate (an individual's) interest in avoiding further disclosure."

American Civil Liberties Union v. Department of Justice, 698 F.Supp.2d 163, 165

(D.D.C. 2010), citing Harrison v. Executive Offce for United States Attorneys, 377

F.Supp.2d 141, 148 (D.D.C. 2005) and Reporters Cmte., 489 U.S. at 770. Thus, even

individuals who are convicted of, or who plead guilty to, criminal charges retain privacy

rights under the FOIA.

21. In considering requests for third party law enforcement records, CRM has

determined as a matter of policy that the balance will characteristically tip in favor of

third party privacy interests, given the strong interests that such individuals have in

protecting their information. In most cases, there is no discernable public interest in any

disclosure of third party law enforcement records because while such information may

shed light on an individual, it wil not shed any light on the Government agency's

of 11


activities. Consequently, any disclosure could and would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

In order to overcome the third party's privacy interests, a requester must clearly

demonstrate a public interest that would outweigh the individual's personal privacy

interests and would significantly benefit the public. Also, the information requested must

be "likely to advance (the public) interest." National Archives and Records Admin. v.

Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2004). Furthermore, when the alleged public interest is to

show governmental misconduct, it is insufficient to merely make that claim. Rather, a

plaintiff must make a "meaningful evidentiary showing" that "would warrant a belief by

a reasonable person that the alleged Government impropriety might have occurred."

Favish, 541 US. at 174, 175.

22. In the present case, CRM concluded that Mr. Magliocchetti has significant

privacy interests in criminal law enforcement records about him. The fact that he was

indicted and pled guilty does not alter CRM's conclusion that he retains strong privacy

interests under the FOIA. As previously noted, the Supreme Court recognizes the interest

in deciding when, how, and to what extent information is disclosed as being part of the

privacy interest protected by FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C). By pleading guilty,

Mr. Magliocchetti prevented further public exposure and disclosure of personal

information that would have occurred during a criminal triaL. i Thus, while this matter is

not completely private and there have been minimal prior public disclosures about

i Mr. Magliocchetti's indictment, plea agreement and accompanying statement of facts, andrelated press releases describe in general terms activities by Mr. Magliocchetti that led to his indictmentand guilty plea, but contain minimal personal information about him. True and accurate copies ofDOJ'spress releases about Mr. Magliocchetti's indictment and guilty plea are attached hereto as Exhibits 7-9.True and accurate copies of the Indictment (United States v. Magliocchetti, 1: 1 0-cr-0286- TSE (D.D.C.),Docket ("Dkt.") No.1), the Plea Agreement (United States v. Magliocchetti, 1: 1O-cr-0286-TSE (D.D.C.)

Dkt. No. 22), and the Statement of Facts (United States v. Magliocchetti, I: I O-cr-0286- TSE (D.D.C.) Dkt.No. 23) are attached hereto as Exhibits 10-12.

of 11


Mr. Magliocchetti in the indictment and plea agreement/statement of facts, as well as

DOl's press releases, the vast maj ority of information in Mr. Magliocchetti' slaw

enforcement file has not been made public and he retains a strong interest in keeping such

information private to avoid harassment, stigmatization, and embarrassment.

23. Plaintiff has not established a public interest sufficient to counterbalance

Mr. Magliocchetti's strong privacy interests. Plaintiff avers that:

(T)hese records are likely to contribute to greater public awareness oftheextent to which the Criminal Division and DOl have taken any steps toprevent Mr. Magliocchetti and the public from learning about any aspectof the United States' investigation and prosecution of Mr. Magliocchettiincluding, but not limited to, preventing any inquiry into or public airingofMr. Magliocchetti's relationship with members of Congress.Unprecedented provisions in the government's written plea agreementwith Mr. Magliocchetti waiving all FOIA and Privacy Act rightsMr. Magliocchetti has in this information and the failure of the pleaagreement to require Mr. Magliocchetti' s continued cooperation suggestthe government seeks to prevent the public from learning whether anymembers of Congress knew or should have known ofMr. Magliocchetti'silegal activities. The requested documents would shed light on this issueand how the Department of Justice is fulfilling its responsibilities toinvestigate and prosecute crimes.

See Exhibit 1, p. 2-3.

Plaintiff continues by suggesting that "DOJ has attempted to suppress information

pertaining to members of Congress and their relationships with Mr. Magliocchetti and

PMA Group, Inc." and that "(w)hether and to what extent members of Congress running

for reelection participated in Mr. Magliocchetti' s ( campaign contribution) scheme... or

were knowing recipients of (those contributions) bear directly on their suitability for

public office." Id. at p. 4-5.

24. Plaintiff has failed to establish the existence of a public interest recognized

under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C), and to establish that any such interest outweighs

of 11


Mr. Magliocchetti's significant privacy interests. Specifically, while the information

sought by plaintiff might show something about particular individuals (Mr. Magliocchetti

or any Congresspersons who may be mentioned in his law enforcement records), that

information would not shed any light on the Criminal Division's or DOl's activities.

Moreover, plaintiff has not made any meaningful evidentiary showing of misconduct by

the Criminal Division or DOl Its supposition that the Criminal Division and DOJ are

attempting to conceal information about Mr. Magliocchetti and Congresspersons from the

public, without more, falls far short of the "meaningful evidentiary showing" required by

Favish and is not enough to "warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged

Govermnent impropriety might have occurred." Favish, 541 US. at 174. The records

plaintiff requested are not likely to advance the purported public interest, in any event.

Plaintiff seeks all information from the law enforcement file concerning

Mr. Maglioccheui (except grand jury and publicly available information). This

underlying investigative information is not likely to advance the public's knowledge

about DOl's purported attempt to conceal information, but rather would reveal only the

allegedly concealed information itself?

25. Based on the preceding, CRM concluded that plaintiffs request for third

party law enforcement records could and would result in an unwarranted invasion of

2 Also, despite plaintiffs characterization ofthe FOIAIPrivacy Act waiver in Mr. Magliocchetti's

plea agreement as "unprecedented," my cursory search of West law revealed numerous instances wheresuch a provision was included in a plea agreement. See, e.g., Ebling v. Department of Justice, 20 II WL2678935 (D.D.C. luI. 11,2011) (slip copy) (FOIA case where request was precluded by FOIAIPrivacy Actwaiver in criminal plea agreement); Boyce v. United States, 2010 WL 2691609 (W.D.N.C. Jul. 6, 20IO)(unpub.) (same); Caston v. Executive Offce for United States Attorneys, 572 F.Supp.2d 125 (D.D.C. 2008)(same); Patterson v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008 WL 2597656 (E.D. Va. Jun. 27, 2008) (unpub.)(same); United States v. Scott, 2006 WL 3327624 (WD. Va. Nov. 16,2006) (unpub.) (criminal case wherethe court recited terms of defendant's plea agreement).

of 11


Mr. Magliocchetti's privacy, and thus CRM is following its practice of categorically

denying such requests under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

SEGREGATION

26. Because CRM determined that all responsive information is categorically

exempt pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C), there is necessarily no information that can

be segregated and disclosed.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this day of 2011.

~l?a'Kristin 1. Ellis

Page i 1 of 11


Exhibit i


CREW

I

"1-, t'/J Î;7 /'í.~-:~-~.¿0 ;/~, U l) // / /-'......

citizens for responsibilityand ethics in washington

1400 Eye Street N.W., Suite 450

Washion, D.C. 20005Pho:ne: 202-408-5565

Fax: 202-588-5020

FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET

TO: FROM:

Rena Y. Ki Chi~ FOTA/PA Secton Ane Weirr

COMPANY: DATE:

9/27/10Cri Diion, U.S. Deparent of

JusticeRECIPIENT'S FAX NUMBER:

202-514-6117

PAGE 1 OF: 8

RE:RECIPIENT'S PHONE NUMBER:

Freedom of lofomitiun Act Request

NOTES/COMMENTS:

Pages tranmitted are privileged and confidentiaL


â/¿)()(JO -;,7////

CREW citdizenhs .for. responh~ibilityan et ics in was ington

September 27, 2010

By Facsimile: 202-514-6111

Rena Y. KimChief, FOIAI A SectionCriroina1 DivisionU.S. Deparent of JusticeSuite 1127, Keeney Building950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Re: Freedom of Informat)on Act Request

Dear Ms. Kü:o.:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") makes this request forrecords, regardless of fonnat, medium, or physical characteristics, and including electronicrecords and infonnation, audiotapes, videotapes and photographs, pursuant to the Freedom ofInformation Act ("FOrA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 552, et ~., and u.s. Deparment of Justice ("DOJ")regulations, 28 C.F.R. Par 16.

Specifically, CREW seeks all records ofthe CrÍminal Division including, but not limitedto, records of the Public Integrity Section, pertainÍng to the investigation and prosecution of Paul1. Magliocchetti, the founder and owner of PM A Group, Inc., for false statements, making illegalconduit campaign contributions, mang ilegal corporate campaign contributions, and any othercharges at issue in United States of America v. Paul J lviagliocclzetti, Crim. NO.1: 10-cr-287

(E.D. Va.).

Please search for responsive records regardless offonnat, medium, or physicalcharacteristics. Where possible, please produce records electronically, in PDF or TIF format on aCD-ROM. We seek records of any kind, including electronic records, audiotapes, videotapes,and photographs.

If it is your position that any portion of the requested records is exempt from disclosure,CREW requests that you provide it \'~th an index of those documents as required under Vaughn

v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1972). As you arc aware, aVaughn index must describe each document claimed as exempt with suffcient specificity "topermit a reasoned judgment as to whether the mate.rial is actually exempt unde.r FOlA."Founding Church o/Scíentology v, Bell, 603 F.2d 945,949 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Moreover, theVaughn index must "describe each document or portion thereof witheld, and for each

withholding it must discuss the consequences of supplying the sought-after information," King l1,

1400 Eye Street, N.W" Suite 450, Washington. D,C, 20005 I 202.408.5565 phone I 202.588.5020 fax I \N1w.cltizensforethics.org

(l~~a


Rena Y. KimSeptember 27,2010Page 2

Us. Dep 't of Justice, 830 F.2d 210,223-24 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasis added). Furer, "thewithholding agency must supply 'a relatively detailed justification, specifically identifying thereasons why a paricular exemption is relevant and correlating those claims with the paricularpar of a withheld document to which they apply.'" ld. at 2.24 (citing Mead Data Central v. USDep 'f of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 251 (D.C. Cir. 1977)).

In the event that some portions of the requested records are properly exempt fromdisclosure, please disclose any reasonably segregable non-exempt portions of the requestedrecords. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). If it is your position that a document contains non-exemptsegments, but that those non-exempt segments are so dispersed thoughout the document as tomake segregation impossible, please state what portion of the document is non-exempt, and how

the material is dispersed throughout the document. Mead Data Central, 566 F.2d at 261. Claimsof nonsegregabilìty must be made with the same degree of detail as required for claims ofexemptions in a Vaughn index. If a request is denied in whole, please state specifically that it isnot reasonable to segregate portions of the record for release.

Finally, CREW welcomes the opportUlÌty to discuss with you whether and the extent towhich this request can be narrowed or modified to better en.able DOJ to process it within theFOrA's deadlines,

Fee Waiver Request

In accordance with 5 U.S.c. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(k), CREWrequests a waiver of fees assocìated with processing this request for records. The subj ect of thisrequest concems the operations of the federal government and expenditui:es, and the disclosureslikely will contribute to a better understanding of relevant governm.ent procedures by CREW andthe general public in a significant way. Moreover, the request primarly and fudamentally is fornon-commercial puroses. 5 U.S.c. § 552(a)( 4)(A)(iii). See, e,g., McClellan Ecological v.Carlucci, 835 F.2d 1282, 1285 (9th Cir. 1987).

Specifically, these records are likely to contribute to greater public awareness ofth.eextent to which the Crirral Division and DOJ have taken any steps to prevent Mr.

Magliocchetti and the public fi:om learing about any aspect of the United States' investigationand prosecution of Mr. Maglíocchetti including, but not limited to, preventing any inquiry into orpublic airing ofMr. Magliocchetti's relationships v,rith members of Congress. Unprecedentedprovisions in the governent's written plea agreement with Mr. Magliocchettì waiving all FOTA

and Privacy Act rights Mr. Magliocchetti has in this infonnation and the failure of the pleaagreement to require Mr. Magliocchetti's continued cooperation suggest the governent seeks toprevent the public from learing whether any members of Con,ress knew or should have knovtnof Mr. Magliocchetti i s ilegal activities. The requested documents would shed light on this issue



and how the Department of Justice is fulfilling its responsibilities to investigate and prosecutecnmes.

CREW is a non-profit corporation, organized under section 501 (c)(3) of the InternalRevenue Code. CREW is committed to protecting the public's right to be a'ware of the activitiesof governent offcials and to ensurng the integrity of those offcials. CREW is dedicated toempowering citizens to have an influential voice in governent decisions and in the governentdecision-making process. CREW uses a combination of research, litigation, and advocacy toadvance its mission. The release of information garered though this request is not in CREW'sfinancial interest. In addition, CREW will disseminate any documents it acquires from thisrequest to the public through W\vw.scribd.coin and CREW's website, which also contains linksto thousands of pages of documents CREW acquired from multiple FOrA requests. Seeww.citizensforethics.org. CREW's website includes documents relating to CRE\V's F01Alitigation, Internal Revenue complaints, and Federal Election Commission complaints.

Under these circumstances, CREW satisfies fully the criteria for a fee waiver.

News Media Fec Waiver Request

CREW also asks that it not be charged search or review fees for this request becauseCREW qualifies as a "representative of the news media" pursuant to the FOIA. In Nat 'l Sec.Archive v. Us. Dep't of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1989), the Cour of Appeals forthe District of Cohunbia Circuit found the National Security Archive was a representative of thenews media under the FOIA, relying on the FOIA's legislative history, which indicates the phrase"representative of the news medía" is to be interpreted broadly; "Li)t is critical that the phrase'representative of the news media' be broadly interpreted ifthe act is to work as expected. ... Infact, any person or orgw1ization which regularly publishes or dísseminates information to thepublic. . . should qualif for waivers as a 'representative of the news media.''' 132 Congo Rec.S 1 4298 (daily ed. Sept. 30, 1986) (emphasis added), cited in id

CREW routinely and systematically disseminates infonnation to the public in severalways. First, CREW maintais a frequently visited website, \VW:v.citizensforethics.org, thatreceived 75,629 visits in August 2010. The website reports the latest developments and containsin-depth ínformation about a variety of activities of governent agencies and offcials. Inaddition, CREW posts all of the documents it receives under the FOrA on \\ww.scribd.com. andthat site has received 412,057 visits to CREW's documents since April 14,2010.

Second, since May 2007, CREW has published an online newsletter, CREWCuts, thatcurrently has 15,731 subscribers. CREWCufs provides subscribers with regular updatesregarding CREW's activities and information the organization has received from government



entities. A complete archive of past CREWCuts is available athttp://ww . ci ti zensforethics. org/newsl etter.

Third, CREW pubhshes a blog, Citizens bloggi11gfor responsibilty and ethics inTYashingtoJ1, that reports on and analyzes newsworthy developments regarding government ethicsand corruption. The blog, located at http://ww.citiznesforetbics.orglblog, also provides liri

that direct readers to other news aricles and commentar on these issues. CREW's blog had1,174 bits in August 2010.

Finally, CREW has published numerous reports to educate the public about governmentethics and corrption, including agencies' failure to comply with their record keeping

responsibilities. See Record Chaos, which examines agency compliance with electronic recordkeeping responsibilities; The Revolving Door, a comprehensive look into the post-governmentactivities of24 former members of President Bush's cabinet; and Those Who Dared: 30 OffcialsTifího Stood Up For Our Country. These and all other CREW's reports are available athttp://mv . ci tizensforetbics. org/;repQi;s.

Based on these extensive publication activities, CREW qualifies for a fee waiver as a"representative of the news media" under the FOIA.

Request for Expeditíon

Puxsuant to 5 U.S.c. § 552(a)(6)(E)(1) and 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(iv), CREW requests thatDOl expedite the processing of this request. As required by DOl regulations, 28 C.F.R. §l6.5(d)(2), CREW is submìtting its request for expedition to the director of Public Affairs. Acopy of CREW's request is enclosed.

CREW also requests that DOJ expedite its request pursuant to 28 C.F,R. § 16.5(d)(ii). Asexplained above, CREW is engaged primarily in the dissemination of infonnation that it gathersfrom a variety of sources, including the FOIA, and seeks the information requested in this FOlArequest for the express purose of disseminating it to the public. In addition to the web sites on

which CREW posts all documents it acquires through the FOIA, CREW's website containsnumerous examples of its efforts, including report it has published based on information itreceives though the ForA. For example, CREW's report, Record Chaos: The Deplorable Stateof Electronic Record Keeping in the Federal Govermnent, was based in significant par ondocuments CREW requested under the ForA from a variety of agencies, including DOJ.

There is a particular urgency to inform the public about the extent to which DOl hasattempted to suppress infonnation pertaining to members of Congress and their relationship withMr. Maglíocchetti and PMA Group, Inc. and the exact nature of that information in light of theupcoming congressional elections. Whether and to what extent members of Congress ruing



for reelection paricipated in Mr. Magliocchetti's scheme to make hundreds of thousands of

dollars in ilegal conduit and corporate federal cainpaign contributions or were the knowingrecipients of any of those dollars bear directly on their suitability for public offîce. In light of thecritical importance of this infonnatiòn to voters in the upcoming eleotions, immediate action isrequired.

Pursuant to 28 C.P.R. § 16.5(d)(3), I hereby certify that the basis for CREW's request forexpedition, as outlined above, is true and ooneot to the best of my knowledge and belief.

If you have any questions about ths request or foresee any problems in releasing fully andon an expedited basis the requested records, please oontaot me at (202) 408-5565. Also, ifCREW's request for a fee waiver is not granted in full, please contact our office immediatelyupon making suoh determination. Please send the requested records to Anne L. Weismann,Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 450,Washington, D.C. 20005.

Sincerely,

e L. WeismanChief Counsel

Enclosure

co: Matthew Miler


CREW citizens for responsibilityand ethics in wahington

September 27,2010

By facsimile (202) 514-5331) and first-class mail

Matthew Miler

DirectorOftìce of Public Affairs

U.S. Deparent of JusticeRoom 1128950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Re: FOIA Request for Expedition

Dear Mr. Miler:

Pursuant to U.S. Deparent of Justice ("DOl") Free.dom of Information Act ("FOLA")regulations, specifically 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(2), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics inWashington ("CREW") requests that you gnmt its requests for expedition of the enclosed FOIArequests of this date, submitted to the Criminal Division, the Executive Offce of United StatesAttorneys, and the Office ofInformation Policy ("OIP").I

CREW's requests seek copies of records pertaining to the investigation and prosecutiolJ

of Paul J. Magliocchetti, the founder and owner of PMA Group, Inc., for false statements,making ilegal conduit campaign contrbutions, making ilegal corporate caipaign contrbutions,and any other charges at issue in United States of America v. Paul J Magliocchetti, Crim. No.1:10-cr-287 (E.D. Va).

CREW requests expedition in light of the widespread and exceptional media interest inthis matter and the questions raised by the plea agreement entered into between the governentand Mr. Magliocchetti in which Mr. Magliocchetti waved all of his FOIA and Privacy Act rightsand the governent's failur to require Mr. Magliocchetti's continued cooperation. Media

accounts have closely tracked all phases of the government's case against Mr. Magliocchetti,from the bringing of multiple criinal charges to the anouncement that a plea agreement hadbeen reached. See, e.g., Dan Eggen and Mara Glad, Ex-Lobbyist Paul Magliocchettì ChargedWith Campaign-Finance Fraud, The Washington Post, Aug. 6, 2010; Ana Palmer, IndictmentMay Mark End ofP1-1A Scandal, Roll Call, Aug. 9,2010; Susan Crabtree, Report: Former PMA

i CREW's FOIA requests are enclosed as Exlúbit 1. CREW's requests oforp seeks

records of the Offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and Associate AttorneyGeneral.

1400 Eye Street, N.w, Suite 450, Washington, D.C. 20005 i 202.408.5565 phone I 202,588.5020 fax I ww.citizensforethics.org

,~~,


Matthew Miler

September 27, 2010Page Two

Lobbyíst to Plead Guilty, The Hil, Sept. 16,2010; Ex-Lobbyist Pleads Gulty to Ilegal

Camaìgn Donations, Associated Press, Sept. 24, 2010.2 Described a5 "one of the most powerfuland in:fuentiallobbysts in Washington not too long ago,") Mr. Magliocchetti was charged with

and ultimately pleaded gulty to making hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal politicalcontrbutions to campaign committees and political action committees of numerous candidatesfor federal offce.

The goveroents plea agreement with Mr. Magliocchetti contained the unprecedentedwaiver of his rights under the FOIA and the Privacy Act, a waiver seemingly designed to preventthe public from leanng about Mr. Magliocchetti's relationships wìth members of Congress and

any involvement of any member of Congress with his illegal campaìgn contrbutions. This raisessubstatial concerns about what the governent may be hiding and why. In light of this mediainterest and the possible questions about the governent's integrty affecting public confdence,CREW satisfies the DOl requirements for expedition. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(1)(iv).

Moreover, as CREW explaied in its FOIA requests, CREW is a non-profit corporationengaged priarily in disseminating information it gathers from a varety of sources, including theFOIA, and seeks the information requested in its FOIA requests fro the express purose ofdisseminating it to the public. CREW's website, ww.citizensforethics.org, contains links tothousands of pages of documents CREW has acquired from multiple ForA requests, as well asdocuments related to CREW's FOrA litigation and other complaints. Similarly, CREW posts allof its documents acquired through the FOIA on ,Y.scribd.com.

For the foregoing reasons, as well as those set fort in CREVl's FOIA requests ofSeptember 27, 2010, CREW requests that you grant its requests for expedition.

Pursuant to 28 C.F..R § 16.5(d)(3), I hereby certify that the basis for CREW's requests forexpedition is tre and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief

,

e L. WeismanChief Counsel

Enclosures

2 Copies of these arcles are attched as Exhbit 2.

3 Eggen, The Washington Post, Aug. 6,2010.


Exhibit 2


u.s. Department of Justice

Criminal Division

Washington, D,C. 20530

CRM-201000711FSEP 30'2010

Anne L. Weismann, Esq.Chief CounselCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington1400 Eye Street, Suite 450Washington, DC 20005

Dear Ms, Weismann:

This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of September 27, 2010, requesting records ofthe Criminal Division under the Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA). This request has beenassigned file number CRM-20100071 1F. Please refer to this number in any futurecorrespondence with this Unit.

We will conduct a search to determine what records (if any) we have that are within thescope of your request. Once we have completed our search, we wil notify you as to ourdisposition of your request. Please note that this search will encompass only Criminal Divisionrecords.

After careful consideration, I have decided to grant your request for expedited treatment.Provisions for expedited treatment appear in the FOrA at 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E). Thissubsection of the statute is implemented by Department of Justice regulations which provide:

(d) Expedited Processing.(l) Requests and appeals wil be taken out of order and given expedited treatment

whenever it is determined that they involve:

(i) Circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expectedto pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual;

(ii) An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal governmentactivity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information;

(iii) The loss of substantial due process rights; or(iv) A matter of

widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possiblequestions about the government's integrity which affect public confidence.

Regarding your request for waiver of fees, please be advised that this issue will beaddressed separately should any fees be assessed~

IC8 BIsO// ro


If you have any questions regarding the status of this request, you may contact our Unit at202-616-0307.

Sincerely,

Rena Y. Kim, ChiefFreedom of Information/Privacy Act UnitCriminal Division


Exhibit 3



Criminal Division

Washington, D.C, 20530

ocr 15 20mCRM-201000711F

Anne L. Weismann, Esq.Chief CounselCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington1400 Eye Street, Suite 450Washington, DC 20005

Dear Ms. Weismann:

This is in response to your request dated September 27,2010, for records pertaining to the:investigation and prosecution of Paul 1. Magliocchetti, the founder and owner ofPMA Group, Inc., for false statements, making illegal conduit campaigncontributions, making illegal corporate campaign contributions and other chargesat issue in United States of America v. Paul J Magliocchetti, Crim No, 1: 10-cr-287 (E.D. VA).

\Ve have conducted a search and located records responsive to your request. However,we have been advised that these records relate to open and ongoing law enforcement proceedingsin the Eastern District of Virginia, and that release, at this time, could reasonably be expected tointerfere with these proceedings by revealing prematurely the nature and scope of the evidencecompiled by the government. Therefore we are withholding these records in their entiretiespursuant to Exemption 7(A) of the FOIA, which permits the withholding of records orinformation compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production ofsuch law enforcement records or information could reasonably be expected to interfere withenforcement proceedings. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A)

To the extent that the Criminal Division maintains cour filings, we will make themavailable to you if you are interested in this public materiaL. Please advise us and we willconduct a search for such material, if any. If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we wilassume that you are not interested in receiving court records and wil close out your request withthis Office.

You have a right to an administrative appeal of this determination. Departmentregulations provide that such appeals must be filed within sixty days of your receipt of this letter.28 C.F.R. 16.9. Your appeal should be addressed to: Office ofInformation Policy, United StatesDepartment of Justice, 1425 New York Ave., NW, Suite 11050, Washington, DC 20530-0001.

C6~


Both the envelope and the letter should be clearly marked with the legend "ForA AppeaL." If youexercise this right and your appeal is denied, you also have the right to seek judicial review ofthis action in the federal judicial district (1) in which you reside, (2) in which you have yourprincipal place of business, (3) in which the records denied are located, or (4) for the District ofColumbia. If you elect to file an appeal, please include, in your letter to the Office ofInformation Policy, the Criminal Division file number that appears above your name in thisletter.

Sincerely,

Rena Y. Kim, ChiefFreedom of Information/Privacy Act UnitCriminal Division


Exhibit 4


V 'J I I U¡ °l-''V\I LUJ.u~rI\NIII. _ . __CREW I citizens ,tor. respon~ibilityand ethics in washington

A PWÐ ~oU ~ 0 o~ ("l~

Office of Information PolicyU.S. Department of Justice1425 New York Avenue, N.W.Suite 11050Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

cRECEIVËD

1JOV n 1 "Jom~ l 't) 'h"' j'.. . IV

F(JI/l'.¡¡"'''it)'''\

\l~,~r,./

October 28,2010

GI!ZirtOffce 01 ¡¡¡juifil(1LliJ¡1 hJiicy

Re: FOrA Appeal CRM~20 I00iFlJ~,~~i~J:~~,mr"",'~""T0;".::'.y',\~":rr.¡:''!t~ìi~:i~:;',;"'":,:'('I':':",-;-'i~:":,:~\~~::;;;f

Dear Sir/Madam:(.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) hereby appeals the refusalof the Criminal Division of the U.S. Depai1ment of Justice (DOJ) to release to CREW anyrecords responsive to our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request of September 27, 2010.

By letter dated and sent by facsimile on September 27,2010, CREW requested records ofthe Criminal Division pertaining to the in~:!~~~~~i.the founder and owner e:f PMA Group, Inc., for false statements, making illegal conduitcampaign contributions, making ilegal corporate campaign contributions, and any other charges~t i§suejrl.Unite~ S!.ptes ofj!!~Y;,!a~(.#JJ~Crir:..No. 1 :1?-cr.-2~7 ~.D.Va. .For your convenience, a copy of this request is attached as Exhibit A. In Justifying its request fora public interest fee waiver, CREW explained that the requested records are likely to shed lighton the extent to which DOJ has take~an ste s ~revent Mr. Ma liocchetti and the ublic fromleamin about an as ect of t e nite States' invest.H! ia antioonn a annad nr roossrecution of Mr.-~-agliocchetti, in~.' ati hi . . ." _ . s. Highl unusual provisions

i~nment's writteii plea agreement with Mr. Magliocchetti waivin. a i ls n ~ltUtsYAc~!:.Bg,e~t~y.m~1!i~~me rs of Con ress knew or should have kno~~~~"tivities.CREW specifically noted its willingness to discuss with the Criminal Division the scope of itsrequest and whether it can be narrowed or modified to better enable DOJ to process it.

In response, the Criminal Division sent CREW a letter dated October 15, 2010 (attachedas Exhibit B), advising CREW it had conducted a search and located responsive records, but thatDOJ was withholding those records in their entirety pursuant to FÒIA Exemption i~.According to the Criminal Division, it has been advised that the records "relate to open andongoing law enforcement proceedings in the Eastern District of Virginia, and that release, at thistime, could reasonably be expected to interfere with these proceedings by revealing prematurelythe nature and scope ofthe evidence compiled by the government."

The CriminalDivision's initial invocation of Exemption 7(A) to protect from compelled.

1400 Eye Street, N:W" Suite 450, Washington, D,C, 20005 I 202,408,5565 phone I 202,588,5020 fax I www,citizensforèthics,org

siaqei Jalu!.ld iase, LO i.08*i\NO .-iSH3:~


v Ù I I ..~ '-tJVV \J l.Ui.08MJ\Nn

FOIA AppealOctober 28,2010Page Two

disclosure all documents responsive to CREW's request clearly is in error and must be reversed,CREW seeks records of a publicly acknowledged and now closed investigation of Mr.Magliocchetti. The indictment of Mr. Magliocchetti, the plea agreement he reached with thegovernment, and a statement of facts outlining the evidence the government would presentagainst Mr. Magliocchetti ifthe matter had proceeded to trial are all now in the public record,That this is a closed investigation is made all the more evident by the failure of the governmentto require Mr. Magliocchetti's ongoing cooperation in this or any related proceedings as a term ofhis plea agreement. Simply stated, the goverml1ent clearly is done with Mr. Magliocchetti - the .subject of CREW's FOIA request.

As you know, Exemption 7(A) is a temporal exemption that no longer applies once aninvestigation is closed. See, e.g., NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214,224

(1978). Under the facts here - a closed investigation ofMr. Magliocchetti with no possibilty ofit being reopened - the records CREW seeks have lost the protection of Exemption 7(A).

It also appears no one else will be charged as a result of the government's investigationinto PMA Group, Inc. As reported this past August, with Mr. Magliocchetti's indictment "(t)helast shoe appears to have dropped in the PMA Group lobbying scandaL." Anna Palmer,Indictment May mark End of PM A Scandal, Roll Call, Aug. 9, 2010 (attached as Exhibit C).Further buttressing this likelihood is the fact that the indictment against Mr. Magliocchetti namesno others, id., and, as mentioned above, Mr. Magliocchetti has no ongoing obligation tocooperate with the government in any further investigation or prosecution. The CriminalDivision's refusal to produce any documents to CREW under these circumstances, particularlygiven the very unusual provisions in Mr. Magliocchetti's plea agreement with the government,calls into question its true motive.

Even if DOJ were still investigating some aspect of the PMA scandal, this would notjustify withholding the entirety of its investigative records, including those pertaining directly toMr. Magliocchetti. In those circumstances DOl would be required to separate and produce thosefiles pertaining only to Mr. Magliocchetti. That such segregable files exist is apparent from thefact of the government's individual prosecution ofMr. Magliocchetti.

Accordingly, the Criminal Division's initial determination that all records responsive toCREW's FOIA request are exempt under Exemption 7(A) is in error and must be reversed. The

siaqei Jaiu!.Id Jasei LOi.OS-ANn 'WSH3.AN.


v "- I 1 ~'.. -1--11 " ¿;uJ.utnu..IJ

ForA Appeal

October 28, 2010Page Three

Criminal Division must be ordered to complete its processing of the records and to withholdunder Exemption 7(A) only those specific records that pertain to an ongoing investigation, if any.

Respectfully submitted,

) .~~,1..~~,~~!?.,~ Ci1fChief Counsel

Enclosures

SI8qei J8lupd J8Sei LO LOS-ANn .'WSll3AlN.


Exhibit 5



Office of Infonnation Policy

Telephone: (202) 514-3642 Washington, D.C 20530

NOV 04 2010

Ane L. Weismann, Esq.CREW - Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington1400 Eye Street, NWSuite 450Washington, DC 20005

Re: Request No. CRM-201000711F

Dear Ms. Weismann:

This is to advise you that your administrative appeal from the action of the CriminalDivision was received by this Offce on November 3,2010.

The Office of Information Policy has the responsibility of adjudicating such appeals. Inan attempt to afford each appellant equal and impartial treatment, we have adopted a generalpractice of assigning appeals in the approximate order of receipt. Your appeal has beenassigned number AP-20 11-00294. Please mention this number in any future correspondence tothis Office regarding this matter.

We will notify you of the decision on your appeal as soon as we can. If you have anyquestions about the status of your appeal you may contact me at the number above.

Sincerely,

~_._.~)¿~~..../ .~~~Priscilla JonesSupervisory Administrative Specialist

~~V


Exhibit 6


U.S. Department of Justice

Offce of Information Policy

Telephone: (202) 514-3642 Washington, D.C 20530

MAR 1 8 2011

Anne Weismann, Esq.Citizens for Responsibility and

Ethics in WashingtonSuite 4501400 Eye Street, NWWashington, DC 20005

Re: Appeal No. AP-2011-00294Request No. CRM-201000711FKWC:BT

Dear Ms. W cismann:

You appealed from the action of the Ciiminal Division of the United States Departmentof Justice on your request for access to records pertaining to the investigation and prosecution ofPaul J. Magliocchetti.

After carefully considering your appeal, and as a result of discussions between CriminalDivision persolliel and a member of my staff, I am remanding your request for further processingof the responsive records. Although the Criminal Division invoked Exemption 7(A) of theFreedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.c. § 552(b)(7)(A), to withhold in full all responsive recordsat the time your initial request was processed, that exemption, which pertains to records orinformation compiled for law enforcement purposes the release of which could reasonably beexpected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, is no longer applicable to withhold theresponsive records in their entireties. Consequently, the Criminal Division will send any and allreleasable records to you directly, subject to any fees. You may appeal any future adversedetermination made by the Criminal Division. If you would like to inquire about the status ofyour remanded request, please contact the Criminal Division directly.

As part of the 2007 FOIA amendments, the Offce of Governent Infonnation Services(OGiS) was created to offer mediation services to resolve disputes between FOrA requesters andFederal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. Using OGIS services does not affectyour right to pursue litigation. The contact information for OGrS is: Office of GovernmentInformation Services, National Archives and Records Administration, Room 2510, 8601 AdelphiRoad, College Park, MD 20740-6001; e-mail at [email protected]; telephone at 301-837-1996; tollfree at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 301-837-0348.

~


-2-

If you are dissatisfied with my action on your appeal, you may file a lawsuit inaccordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).

Sincerely,~,~Janice Galli McLeod rAssociate Director


Exhibit 7


Lobbyist Indicted for Orchestrating Ilegal Campaign Contribution Scheme Page i of2

THIi COMMON LAW IS nm \Vi"!. OJ, Jj'(~ssril'm fROM THF ~Ol' THli tl~li

H,')me ".ßri,ellng Room ~, ,Justice News

lliL1it4lÚ@iLl

Departnient of Justice

Offce of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEThursday, August 5, 2010

Lobbyist Indicted for Orchestrating Ilegal CampaignConh'ibution Scheme

WASHINGTON - Paul Magliocchetti, the founder and president of PMA Group Inc, (PMA), a lobbyingfirm in Arlington, Va., \vas arrested today on charges of making ilegal campaign contributions andmaking false statements to a federal agency, announeed Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer ofthe Criminal Division, V,S, Attorney Neil H, MaeBride of the Eastern Distriet of Virginia and AssistantDirector Shawn Henry of the FBI's Washington Fif~lii Office.

A federal grand jury returned the indictment on Aug, 4, 2010, which was unsealed today in V,S, DistrictCourt in Alexandiia, Va., following Magliocchetti's arrest by Fll agents, He wil make an initialappearance this afternoon before V,S, Magistrate cTdge T, Rawles ,Iones ,Jr., in federal COUlt inAlexandria.

According to the indictment, Magliocchetti orchestrated a scheme to make hundreds of thousands ofdollars in ilegal conduit and corporate federal campaign contributions in an effort to enrich himself andPMA by increasing the firm's influence, power and prestige among the firm's current and potential

clients, as well as among the elected puhlic offcials to whom PMA and its lobbyists sought access. Thetederal campaigns that received these funds werc unaware of Magliocchctti's alleged scheme,

According to the indictment, the Federal Election Campaign Act limits the amounts individuals cancontribute to election campaigns and political campaign committees (PACs), and prohibits corporationsfrom making contributions, either directly or through offcers of tiie corporation. In order to evade thelegal limits on individual contributions and the outright ban on corporate contributions, the indictmentalleges that Magliocchetti cansed straw donors to make contributions to scores ottederal campaigncommittecs, which in fact were actually paid for by Magliocchetti or PMA, ratlier than the nameddonor.

As alleged in the indictment, Magliocchetti concealed from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) andthe public the fact that he and PMA were the true source of the funds for these ilegal federal campaigncontributions. At the same time, Magliocchetti allegedly ensured that he and PlvA received credit forthese contributions from the campaigns and candidates by, among other things, using family members,PMA employees and others associated with Magliocchetti as the conduits, and by hosting fund-raisingevents in which hc or his associates delivered the contributions,

According to the indictment, from 2003 through 2008, Magliocchetti allegedly used personal andcorporate money to advance funds to or reimburse these individuals for the contributions they made onhis behalf. The funding of the conduits' contributions took several forms, including Magliocchettiissuing personal checks and authorizing PMA to issue business checks, and to make salary and bonuspayments to cover the costs of the contributions. In one instance, Magliocchetti allegedly used twoacquaintances that lived near his Florida vacation home to make contributions by, muong other things,designating them as members of PMA's board of directors and paying them with PMA funds eventhough they lived in Florida, never worked as lobbyists and never attended PMA board meetings.

Through this scheme, Magliocchetti caused various federal campaign committees to unknmvingly createand fie false repOlts with the FEC regarding tiie contributions they had received, As alleged in theindictment, these reports, which the FEe made available to the public, falsely stated that the conduitshad made contiibutions, when in fact the contributions were made by lIagliocchetti or PMA.

The ii-count indictment charges Mag1incehetti with four count.s of making ileg::l eampaigncontributions in the name of another; four counts of making ilegal campaign contributions from a

http://ww,justice.gov/opa/pr/20 1 0/ August/1 O-crm-899.html

L1)l.j¡!ìI¡:IiLìiiii

@ Prinkr Friendly

DEI/ENDINGAFFORD/\.HJLE

DgPARTMgNT,~f" J1JSTIGE

ACTION C:ENTER

Report a Crime

Get iJ .Job

Loeate a Prison, Inmate! or Sex Offender

A.pply for a Grant

Submit a Comphiínt

Waste) Fraud, Ahusi.-' orthe Inspector General

Find S~11es of Sehed Propeiiy

Find Help and InformatI()H for CrimeVktírns

Register, Apply h)r Permits, or H.eques-lRecords

Idel1tìt~v Our Most \Vanted Fugitives

Find a Form

Report and Identify .Mi.';;sing Versons

Contact U~

8/29/20 i 1


Lobbyist Indicted for Orchestrating Ilegal Campaign Contribution Scheme Page 2 of2

corporation; and three counts of causing federal campaigns to unwittingly make false statements,

In connection with this investigation, Mark Magliocchetti pleaded guilty today before ,Judge ,Jones inU.S. District in Alexandria to making ilegal corporate campaign contributions, According to courtdocuments, Mark Magliocchetti admitted to receiving payments from an indi\~dual and a company withthe understanding that those monies were to be used for federal campaign contributions, According tocourt documents, the amount of contributions made by Mark Magliocchetti and his wife, and funded bythe individual and the company, exceeded $12.0,000 but was less than $20°1°00. Sentencing has beenscheduled for Nov. 16, 2010.

This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys M. Kendall Day, Justin V. ShuI' and Kevin 0, Driscoll ofthe Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section, and by Assistant U.s, Attorney Mark D, Lytle of the U,S.

Attorney's Offce for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case is being investigated by the FBI.

An indictment is merely a n accusation and is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocentuntil and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,

10-899 Criminal Division

u.s. DEPARTMENT,rJUSTICE ü5ll Pel1nsYIVal1laAvemie, NW, Washington, OC 20530.0001

fhe Attornfiy Ceneral

DOJ A~ienciGs

Bu(1qet & PerfolïlH;i:)Ce

Strategic Plans

RESOURCESForms

Piiblic~ü!ons

Case Hir,ihii!:ìhts

Legislative Hisloriøs

CAREERSJUSTlCE.GO'V

ABOUT

Lø!Jal Careøl'sSileM:cip1\ to Z Index/\rcliiveAcci;)ssibiiity

FCIA

No FEA¡:ç Act

Iriform:;tjonO:..:lity

Privacy Policy&

For ErrploYÐElS

InspectorStlidènt Opportunities

int¡'.iniSf)ips

CONTACT

USA.govR(~:cidY.~10V

BUSINESS" GRANTS BRIEFING ROOMBusiness Cpportulùíes

& Disadvdntageti

,justice News

T¡-~e Justice Biog

(~l3ntsVideos

Photo Ut)(ary

http://ww.justice.gov/opa/pr/20 1 0/ August/l O-crm-899 .html 8/29/2011


Exhibit 8


Lobbyist Sentenced to 27 Months in Prison for Role in Ilegal Campaign Contribution Sc... Page 1of2

THF COMMON tAW IS Tim wiLL or i'J1ii1SSt:INH f'IWM 'Ill!' t¡01' Tili( ~itt;.;

Home Urietìng Room ), ,Justice News

iiiLîuglflSÇLl

Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEFriday, January 7, 2011

Lobbyist Sentenced to 27 Months in Prison for Role inIlegal Campaign Contribution Scheme

WASHINGTON - Paul Magliocchetti, the founder and president of PMA Group Inc" a lobbyingfirm, was sentenced today to 27 months in prison for making hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegalcampaign contributions and making false statements to a federal agency, announced Assistant AttorneyGeneral Lanny A. Breuer ofthe Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride of the EasternDistriet of Virginia; and ,James W. Mc,Junkin, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI's WashingtonField Office.

U.S, District Court ,Judge T,S, Ells III also senteneed Magliocchetti to two years of supervsedrelease and ordered him to pay a $75,000 fine, Magliocchetti pleaded ¡''liilty in U,S, District Court inAlexandria, Va" on Sept. 24, 2010, to one count each of making false statements, making ilegal conduitcontributions and making ilegal corporate contributions.

"Paul Magliocchetti spent half of a decade gaming the system. He concocted a massive schemeto secretly funnel money to political campaigns - all so that he could gain wealth and prestige," saidAssistant Attorney General Lanny A, Breuer of the Criminal Division, "AB today's sentence makes clear,he must now pay a price. We wil continue to bring to justice those who hide the source of campaignfunds and thus damage the integrity of our election process,"

"Mr. Magliocchetti carried out one of the largest federal campaign finance frauds in hislory,"said V,S, Attorney MacBride. "He learned that no one despite wealth and influence - is above the law,Today's sentence should put anyone on notice that if you seek to buy the influence of elected publicoffcials through skirting the campaign finance laws you'll not merely be exposed publicly but you'll goto prison for a long time,"

"Enhancing one's professional reputation by using colleagues, friends and even family to makeilegal campaign contributions is dishonest: and Mr, Magliocchetti lmew that his actions were againstthe law," said James W. McJunkin, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI's Washington Field Office."I am proud of the team of agents from the Defense Criminal Investigative Servce and FBI who workedon behalf of all Americans to investigate this blatant abuse of prestige and money. The pnblic needs totrust that elections will not be influenced in this manneL"

He was charged in an indictment unsealed on Aug. 5, 2010. According to the indictment,Magliocchetti orchestrated a scheme to make ilegal conduit and corporate federal campaigncontributions in an effort to enrich himself and PMA by increasing the firm's influence, power andprestige among the firm's current and potential clients as well as among the elected public offcials towhom PMA and its lobbyists sought access. The federal campaigns that received these funds wereunaware of Mag Ii ace hetti's scheme.

Magliocchetti admitted that, from 2003 through 2008, he used members of his family, friendsand PMA lobbyists to make unlawnll campaign contributions. Aware of the strict limits on individualfederal campaign contributions - and the outright ban on corporate contributions - Magliocchetliadmitted that he instructed the conduits to 'm'ite checks out of their personal checking accounts tospecific candidates for federal office and that, for the purpose of making these contributions,Magliocchetti advanced funds to or reimbursed these individuals using personal and corporate monies,Magliocehetti also admitted that, through this scheme, he caused various federal campaign committeesto unknowingly create and file false reports with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regarding thecontributions they had received. These repOlis, which the FEC made available to the public, falselystated that the conduits had made contributions, when in fact the contributions \ycrc madc byMagliocchetti or PMA.

http://ww.justice.gov/opa/pr/201l/January/1 1-crm-020.html

ßjI'thUI¡:I£jiij

Prìnter Frlendly

DEI/ENDINGAI' FORDABLE

DEPARTMENT",:!;' JUSTICE

ACTION CENTER

Report a Crinw

Get a .Job

Locate a Prisonj Inmate, or Sex Offender

Apply fol' a Grant

Submit a Complaint

vV'asüC:i Fraud, Ahuse orthe Inspector Genentl

Find Sak,':~ of ,:.kii.ùì Properiy

Find lIe113 and Information for CrimeVkti¡n8

Regíster, Apply Ú)l Permits, or Reqnes-tRecords

Identi(v Our 1\-1ost \'V'anteù Fugitives

Find a Form

Report and Identi(y lVl1ssing Persons

Contact Cs

8/29/2011


Lobbyist Sentenced to 27 Months in Prison for Role in Ilegal Campaign Contribution Sc... Page 2 of2

In connection with this investigation, Mark Magliocchetti pleaded guilty on Aug. 5, 2010, beforeu.s. Magistrate Judge T, Rawles Jones Jr., in U,S, District Court in Alexandria to making ilegalcorporate campaign contributions. According to court documents, Mark Magliocchetti admitted toreceiving payments ú'Ol1 an individual and a company with the understanding that those monies wereto be used for federal campaign contributions, According to court documents, the amount ofcontributions made by Mark Magliocchetti and his wife, and funded by the individual and the company,exceeded $120,000 but was less than $200,000. Mark Magliocchetti was sentenced to 14 days in prisonplus five and a half months of home confinement.

This case was prosecuted by Deputy Chief Justin V, Shur and Trial Attorneys M, Kendall Day andKe\~n 0, Driscoll of the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section, and by Assistant U.S, AttorneyMark \), Lytle of the U,S. Attorney's Offce for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case was investigatedby the FBI and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service,

11-020 Criminal Division

.8. DEPARTMENT"l'''JUSTICE 950 PunnsylvanlaAvenm¡-, NI/, Washniglún DC 20(í30-QOOl

ABOUT

Trie A Hornev General

DOJ Aqt'nd~~s

Budget & Performance

Strategic Plans

RESOURCESForms

Publieaiions

Case Higrilíghts

LSQislative Histories

CAREERSj"t.STlCJE.GOV

Leqal Careels

Student. Oppo"tullith'1S

Intemshìps

Site MapJ\ te 2. IndexArchivel\cr.5sìbiiityFOrA

For EmployeesInspector'

fJUSINESS & GRANTS BRIt,FING ROOM

J~.$tiçe News

Ttie justice Sian

Videos

P~ioto Library

No :;':F:;,Af\ Act

Information Qualily

Privacy Policy8,

USA,\lOV

Hea.jy.govCONTACT

Business Opportunities

& Disadvantagez1

Grants

http://ww.justice.gov/opa/pr/20 i 1/January/11-crm-020,html 8/29/201 i


Exhibit 9


Welcome to the United States Department of Justice Page 1 of3

')'Hl\ COMMON LAW is THE l,t'l1.¡, ()l Jll~SSt:¡N¡; ,¡10M 'IlIt Wm 'Imi ~'fl¡

HOnlr: " ßri,etìng Room ). ,Ju.stice News

,iiLjiral~il¡Ll

Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of theCriminal Division Speak at the Annual Meeting of the

Washington Metropolitan Area Corporate CounselA"sociation

McLean, VA -- vVednesday,JanuaiY26, 2011

David, thank you for that warm introduction. It is truly a pleasure to be here. I want to thankmy friend Sam Flax for inviting me to speak with you today, and I also want to thank Ilene Reid,WMACCA's executive director, for the excellent job she has done in organizing this event, and for beingso accommodating about my schedule today, which unfortunately prevented me from being able to joinyou earlier.

Since r became Assistant Attorney (jenera1) in April 2009, I have spoken to many audiencesabout the recent reinvigoration of our criminal enforcement efforts: and in this era of heightenedenforcement, I think organizations like WMACCA, which allow business leaders and lawyers to cometogether and share ideas, serve an especially important function, So I'm absolutely honored to be here,and to take part in your Annual Meeting Luncheon,

During my many years in private practice, I represented dozens of companies and executives incriminal and regulatory proceedings. So I have some sense of your roles and responsibilities, Asgeneral counsels and in-house attorneys, you have a keen understanding of the ìmportance ofcompliance within a corporation, AB the lawyers responsible for ensniing that the companies you workfor always act within the bounds of the law, you are necessarily on the front lines of your organizations'compliance efforts, And in the heightened enforcement era we are in, your jobs have never been morecritical than they are today,

The focns of your Annual Meeting this year - individual liability for corporate execntives andin-house counsel - is extremely impOltant, and I commend you for devoting your attention to it. I knowthat the possibility of criminal liability can be a sonrce of intense worry for corporate counseL. Althoughcriminal charges are much rarer than civil lawsuits in the corporate world, the stakes are, of course,much higher.

The Criminal Divisioii, as some of you may know, prosecutes cases all across the countryi inevery district - often, though not always, with the U,S. Attorney's Office in that district. Our nearly 600lavvycrs prosecute cases involving everything from Medicare fraud and money laundering tointernational narcotics traffcking and gang violence, and from child pornography and cybercrîme topublic and corporate corruption, Many of these crimes, for good reason, are not foremost in the mindsof corporate counseL. Devising strategies on how to dismantle Mexican drug cartels, for example - anissue that my team and I are constantly worldng on - is not something that many of you are likely tohave occasion to wony abont in the course of your day, At least I hope not! So what kind offederalcriminal liability might a corporation have to worry abont? How might the Criminal Division'senforcement efforts affect you?

AB an initial matter, in the Criminal Dh~sion we have dramatically increased our enforcementof the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in recent years, That statute, which was once seen as slumbering,is now very much alive and welL. In fact, over the last two years, we have charged more than 50individuals with FCPA-related offenses and collected nearly $2 bilion in FCPA-related fines andpenalties - by far the most people charged and penalties imposed in any similar period. We havebrought these cases against some of the largest corporations in the world. A... just one example, inNovember we resolved a wide-ranging FCPA investigation invoh~ng the freight forwarding companyPanalpina World Transport, its U,S, subsidiaiy, and five oil and gas servce pro,iders, They agreed topay combined criminal penalties of $156 milion.

.Just as important as the collection of fines and penalties, we have aggressively pursuedindividual executives nnder the FCPA. For example, we recently charged the president and the CFO ofLindsey Manufacturing Company with FCPA violations for participating in a scheme to bribe offcials ofthe state-owned electrical utility in Mexico. We also recently arrested the former CEO and the formervice president of business development of LatiNode, a Miami-based telecommunications company, andcharged them in connection with bribes made by LatiNode employees to offcials of the state-ownedtelecommunications company in Honduras.

The Fraud Section of the Criminal Division has primaiy responsibility 'within the Departmentfor enforcing the FCPA, We recently promoted a .ew head of the Section's FCPA Unit and two assistantchiefs, and we have also increased the number otline prosecutors in the Unit, attracting high caliberattorneys \vith extensive experience - inc1udingAssistant u.s. Attorneys with significant trial andprosecntorial experience and attorneys from private practice with defense-side knowledge andexperience. These changes have significantly increased our FCPA enforcement capabilities,

In addition to expanding the unit within the Fraud Section that handles FCPA cases, we havemade changes across the rest ofthe Fraud Section as well. In .January 2010, we hired a new Section

http://ww.justice.gov/criminal/pr/speeches/20 11/crm-speech-ll 0126.html

"'i#t..bUli:14ìii¥l

@ Printer Friendly

DEI1ENDINGJ'iFFORDABLE

DEPARTMENT,if' JUSTICE

ACTION (:ENTER

Report a Criine

Get oJ ,Job

Locate ~l Prison, Inmatc', or Sex Offender

Apply for a Grant

Submit a Complaint

Rllp0l1 \!Va~te1 Fraud, .Ahuse orMiscondnct to th" Inspector General

Find Sales of Seized Propeii:.v

Find Help and TIlJ(irmatio!1 for CrimeVidí!TIS

Registeri Apply ú:i Permits, Of Reques-lRecords

Ideiitì(v Our Most \VaIltcd Fugitives

Find a Form

Report and Identify Missing Persons

Contact Us

8/29/2011



Chief, and over the last 22 months we've hired dozens of additional prosecutors into theSection, who join an already exceptionally dedicated and talented team,

While the Fraud Scction is central in our fight against financial fraud and corporate corruption,outside the Fraud Section we are also taking aggressive steps to combat financial and other crimes thatmay be relevant to the corporate community. In our Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section,for example, we hired a new Chief of the Section last July, and we recently established a new MoneyLaundering and Bank Integrity Unit dedicated to prosecuting financial criminals, As I have explainedto other audiences, this new Unit targets financial institutions and their managers who violate the BankSecrecy Act and other laws; professional money launderers and gatekeepers who provide their servcesto criminal organizations, such as drug cartels; and individuals using new and sophisticated moneylaundering techniques, such as virtual currency, In the past year-and-a-half, the Section has resolvedsignificant cases against some of the most well-known banking institutions in the country, To give twoexamples: In December 2009, Credit Suisse admitted to systematically evading U,S, sanctions againstIran, Sudan, Burma, Libya, and Cuba, over the course of a decade, As part of a deferred prosecutionagreement with the government, Credit Suisse forfeited $536 milion dollars. And last August, also aspart of a defcrred prosecution agrcement, Bai'c1ays Bank agreed to forfeit $298 millon in connection,,,ith having moved or permitted to be moved hundreds of milions of dollars through the U,S. financialsystem on behalf of banks in these same countries.

Another Criminal Division Section that often becomes involved in matters touching uponeorporatf~ erime is our storied Pl1hlie Integrity Section. Earlier this month in a PuhHe Integrity (~lSe, forexample, Paul Magliocchetti, the founder and former president of PMA Group Inc., a lobbying tïrm, wassentenced to 27 months in prison for using his friends and family to make hundreds of thousands ofdollars in illegal campaign contributions for the purpose of enrichiug himself and his fiim.

I have necessarily described to you just the tip of the iceberg, But I think you can sec even fromthis sketch that the Department is more committed than ever to rooting out corporate malfeasance andthat, as a result, there are plenty of potential pitfalls for corporations that are not diligent aboutcoinpliance. We have many tools at our disposal, and we are intent on using them. For example, wehave devoted significant resources over the past year to the increased use of sensitive investigativetechniques in the white collar context. We recently hired a nc\\' Director ofthc Office that rcviews andapproves all applications for federal wiretaps across the country, and we have also substantiallyincreased the number of attorneys in the unit that handles them,

As I have said before, if we find credible evidence of criminal conduct - by corporate executivesor the lawyers and accountants who advise them - we will not hesitate to charge it. Indeed, as I amsure you are aware, a grand jUlY in the District of Maryland recently indicted Lauren Stevens, a formerin-house attorney for a major pharmaceutical company, charging her with obstructing justice inconnection witli an investigation by the Food and Drug Administration into the off-label marketing of apharmaceutical drug, That case is being prosecuted by the Civil Division's Offce of ConsumerLitigation and the U.S, Attorney's Offce in Boston.

Of course, I cannot speak about pending cases, including the case against Ms. Stevens, 1 cansay, though, that as corporate counsel, your actions have consequences, both good and bad. You are thegatekeepers for your organizations, which means that you are both the tïrst line of defense againstpotential criminal liability and the ones best positioned to identify problem areas, and fix them, Asmembers of \VMACCA who have coine here today, you have shown a level of commitment to yourprofession and your responsibilities that I believe wil seive you wcll. I would not expect you to beworking in an organization that is lax about compliance, However, to the extent that you do, or thinkthat improvements can be made, you are the primaiy agents for such change,

With that in mind, let me offer you the following challenge: To lead your corporations byexample, 1 have often seen, fi'om the vantage point of my corporate clients and now as the head of theCriminal Division, corporations that lie in wait for regulators or law enforcement to come knocking ontheir doors. I believe that you, my friends - particularly you - can and should do morc. As the lawyerscharged with protecting your corporations fi'om criminal liability, the way I see it, your only incentiveshould be to ensure that your organization is conducting business responsibly, in every corner of theglobe where it operates.

There w:ill always be rogue employees who decide to take matters into their 0\-\'11 hands. Theyare a fact of life. But when the right tone is set at the top - in the executive suite and in the generalcounsel's offce - you significantly reduce the risk of criminal conduct. And your jobs become easier.We are not interested in prosecuting corporations or executives or lawyers who are working hard to dothe right thing, We are not interested in making cases for their own sake. We bring cases only whenthe facts and the law convince us that we can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, just as wewill not shy away from bringing any case when the circumstances warrant, we also aim to rewardresponsible corporations - corporations that maintain strong compliance programs and remedy anddisclose wrongdoing when they discover it,

So, friends, I encourage you to own the task of deterring and preventing crime vi'Íthin yourorganizations and to lead them domi the path of responsibility and compliance. You will always bebetter off for ha,~ng done so,

The Department of Justice is committed to rooting out corporate crime, 1 am personallycommitted to it. I hope you wil be too.

Let me commend you again on your excellent program and thank you for your invitation tocome here today. I am delighted to take any questions, I'm certain I haven't answered them alL.

,$, DEPARTMENT",.JUSTICE 95- F'eiinsytvanlaAv-em.ie, NW, Vl/shiigloii, DC 2C1S;lO,m:iOi

ABOUT RESOURCES CAREERSIT t:tS'll(jE.('HJ~

The Attorney General

OOJ AQencjes

Bu(1~ie! &. PerfOrrnBrìCe

Forms Legal Cê..ireers Sile ~vl~1p¡\ to Z IndexArehiveACCl'ssibiiitv

For EmployøøsInspector

P .iblicatom

Case Hif,ì~)jr,ihts

Student Opportunities

lntemships Governtr,ent

http://\\ww.justice.gov/criminal/pr/speeches/20 11/crm-speech-11 0126.html 8/29/2011



Strategic Plans Løgislc.:¡tiV0 Histories

CONTACT

FOIA

No FE/\R 11,ct

Information Quality

PliV3CY Policy

&BUSINf::SS- & GRANTS

Business Opportunities

& Disadvantaged

BRIEFING ROOM

Justice News

The Justice BioSJ

VideosGrants Photo Library

http://~ww.justice.gov/criminal/pr/speeches/201 l/crm-speech- 11 0126.html

ResourcesUSA.Qov

Rea(~y.nov

8/29/2011


Exhibit 10


~ag~ID#l

lr i AUG - L1 2010

~ rR\ \ Ii0:

Case 1: 1 O-cr -00286- T8 E Docu ment 1 o Page 1 of

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCLERK. U,$. DISTRICT COURT

ALEXANQ.RIA. V1RGIt'11A

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

Defendant.

) CRIMINAL NO.1 :10CR286)) Counts 1 to 3: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001,2

) (False Statements)

)

) Counts 4 to 7: 2 U.S.C. § 441f

) (Ilegal Conduit Campaign Contributions)

)) Counts 8 to 11: 2 U.S.C. § 441 b

) (Ilegal Corporate Campaign Contributions)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

PAUL J. MAGLIOCCHETTI,

INDICTMENT

August 2010 Term - At Alexandria

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

At all times relevant to this Indictment:

1. PAUL 1. MAGLIOCCHETfI, the defendant, was the founder and owner of PM A

Group, Inc. (formerly known as Paul Magliocchetti Associates, Inc.) (hereinafter referred to as

"PMA").

2. PMA was a lobbying firm incorporated in the State of Virginia and located in

Arlington, Virginia, within the Eastern District of Virginia. PMA had as clients various private

companies and individuals, including many that worked in the defense industry. On their behalf,

PMA acting through MAGLIOCCHETfI regularly sought funding or benefits in the form of

federal appropriations, commonly known as eararks.


Case 1: 1 0-cr-00286- TSE Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 2 of 18 PagelD# 2

3. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, Title 2, United States

Code, Sections 431 through 455, (the "Campaign Act") regulated financial activity intended to

influence the election of candidates ruing for federal offce, including the Senate, House of

Representatives, Presidency, and Vice Presidency.

4. In order to limit the infuence that anyone person could have on the outcome of a

federal election, the Campaign Act established limits on the amounts individuals could

contribute to individual candidate political campaign committees and multi-candidate political

campaign committees (commonly referred to as political action committees or PACs). The

Campaign Act also prohibited corporations from making political contributions, and prohibited

any offcer of a corporation from consenting to such contrbution, in order to eliminate the

infuence of corporate funds in federal elections. The Campaign Act's ban on corporate

contributions also prevented individuals from hiding behind the corporate fonn in order to make

contributions in excess of the legal limits on personal contrbutions.

5. To promote transparency and prevent individuals and corporations from

circumventing these regulations, the Campaign Act prohibited a person from making a political

contribution in the name of another person, including giving funds to a straw donor or conduit

for the purpose of having the conduit pass the fuds on to a federal candidate as his or her own

contribution. It was also a violation of the Campaign Act for a person to reimburse a donor who

had already given to a candidate, thereby converting the donor's contrbution to his or her own.

6. The Federal Election Commission ("FEC") was an agency of the United States

Governent entrsted with the responsibilty of administering and enforcing the Campaign Act.

In order to deter abuses and instil public confidence in the election process, the FEe was and is

2



responsible for making available to the public specific information about the amounts and

sources of political contrbutions to federal candidates and their political committees.

7. Pursuant to the Campaign Act, the FEe required campaign committees and

political action committees to fie periodic reports of receipts and disbursements identifying,

among other things, each person who made a contribution to such committee durng the relevant

reporting period whose contribution or contrbutions had an aggregate amount or value in excess

of $200 within the calendar year, together with the date and the amount of any such contrbution.

In preparing these reports, federal cadidates and political committees relied on the information

provided by the donor, including the individual's name, address, and occupation. These periodic

reports, which were fied with the FEe and made publicly available, were intended to provide

citizens with a transparent record of all contrbutions to candidates for federal office. As such,

they constitute the public's only window into the sources of fuding for federal election

campaigns.

3


Case 1 :10-cr-00286-TSE Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 4 of 18 PagelD# 4

COUNT 1(False Statements)

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:

8. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 though 7 of this Indictment are

realleged as if fully set forth herein.

THE SCHEME

9. From at least Janua 2003 though November 2008, in the Eastern Distrct of

Virginia and elsewhere, in a mattr within the jursdiction of a deparent and agency of the

United States Govenuent, to wit, the FEC, the defendant, PAUL J. MAGLIOCCHETTI,

knowingly and willfully falsified, concealed, and covered up by trick, scheme, and device a

material fact, in that MAGLIOCCHETTI caused scores of campaign committees and political

action committees of candidates for federal offce to unowingly create and submit false reports

to the FEe which indicated that lawfl contributions were made by individuals other than

MAGLIOCCHETTI and PMA to the respective committees when, in trth and in fact, as

MAGLIOCCHETTI well knew, it was MAGLIOCCHETlI and PMA that had made unlawful

contributions to these committees and not the conduits listed in the reports fied with the FEe.

THE PURPOSE OF THE SCHEME

i O. As the founder and president of the company that bore his name,

MAGLIOCCHETlI sought to enrich both PMA and himself by increasing the firm's influence,

power, and prestige - both among the firm's base of curent and potential clients as well as

among the elected public offcials to whom PMA and its lobbyists sought access. Political

contributions to campaign committees and political action committees of various candidates for

4



federal offce (collectively, "federal campaign contrbutions") were a key par of

MAGLIOCCHETTI's plan to increae PMA's profie and its profitability.

i 1. In an effort to achieve his twn goals of increasing PMA's influence and enrching

himself, MAGLIOCCHETTI made hundreds of thousands of dollars in ilegal conduit and

corporate federal campaign contributions. Aware of the strct limits on individual federal

campaign contributions - and the outrght ban on corporate contributions - MAGLIOCCHETTI,

unbeknownst to the federal campaigns, fueled personal and corporate money to friends, family

members, and PMA lobbyists in order to make these unlawfl contributions.

12. The purose of the scheme, therefore, was to conceal from the FEC and the public

the fact that MAGLIOCCHETTI and PMA were the tre source of the fuds for ilegal federal

campaign contrbutions. At the same time, MAGLIOCCHEITI ensured that he and PMA

received credit for these contrbutions from the federal campaigns and candidates by, among

other things, using PMA lobbyists and others associated with MAGLIOCCHETTI as the

conduits, and by hosting fund-raising events in which he or his associates delivered the

contributions.

MAER AND MEANS

The scheme was cared out in the following ways, among others:

13. MAGLIOCCHETTI directly and indirectly solicited numerous individuals,

including, family members, associates, and PMA employees, to make federal campaign

contributions. MAGLIOCCHETTI used personal and corporate money to advance fuds to and

reimburse these individuals for the federal campaign contrbutions they made on

MAGLIOCCHETTI's behalf. The fuding of the conduits' contributions took several forms,

including, MAGLIOCCHETTI issuing personal checks, MAGLIOCCHETII authorizing PMA5



to issue business checks, and MAGLIOCCHETTI authorizing PMA to make salar and bonus

payments designed to disguise the fact that the fuds were eararked for political contrbutions.

14. It was a par of the scheme that MAGLIOCCHETTI used members of his family

to make federal campaign contrbutions. MAGLIOCCHETTI directly and indirectly instrcted

his family members to wrte checks out of their personal checking accounts to specific

candidates for federal offce. At varous times, for the purose of making these contributions,

MAGLIOCCHETTI advanced fuds to or reimbursed his family members though personal

checks, checks from PMA, and by employing them at PMA and giving them additional payments

calculated to fud the family member's campaign contrbutions.

15. It was a par of the scheme that MAGLIOCCHETfI used two acquaintaces to

make federal campaign contributions, "Acquaintace A" and "Acquaintance B," both of whom

lived near MAGLIOCCHETfl's Florida vacation home. MAGLIOCCHETTI directly and

indirectly instructed these two acquaintaces to write checks out of their personal checking

accounts to specific candidates for federal offce. At varous times, for the purose of makng

these contrbutions, MAGLIOCCHETTI advanced fuds to or reimbursed these two

acquaintances through personal checks, checks from PMA, and by designating them as members

of PMA's Board of Directors even though the acquantances lived in Florida, never worked as

lobbyists, and never attended PMA board meetings.

16. It was further a par of the scheme that MAGLIOCCHETTI used lobbyists

employed by PMA to make federal campaign contributions. At varous times, for the purose of

making these contributions, MAGLIOCCHETfI advanced fuds to or reimbursed these PMA

employees though personal checks and checks from PMA. For the purpose of making these

contríbutions. MAGLIOCCHETTI also eararked PMA payroll payments calculated to fund the6



employee's contrbutions and cover the applicable taes and witholdings. In some instaces,

MAGLIOCCHEITI instructed the PMA lobbyists to wrte checks out of their personal checking

accounts to specific candidates for federal office. In other instances, MAGLIOCCHETTI

provided PMA lobbyists with a specific pool of PMA fuds and directed that they used the fuds

for campaign contributions without specifying which federal candidates should receive the

contributi ons.

17. MAGLIOCCHETTI, through this s.cheme, caused varous campaign and political

action committees, subject to the reporting provisions of the Campaign Act, to unwittingly file

report with the FEC which falsely stated that the conduits had made federal campaign

contributions when in truth and in fact each contribution was made by MAGLIOCCHETTI or

PMA.

18. In order to perpetuate the scheme, among other things, MAGLIOCCHETTI

disguised the payments from PMA to the conduits by causing them to be falsely characterized in

the books and records of the company as salar or bonus payments. MAGLIOCCHETTI also

tracked the campaign contributions of the straw donors using spreadsheets which were updated

and maintained by MAGLIOCCHETTI's assistat. MAGLIOCCHETTI furher pressured PMA

employees to individually contrbute, leading them to believe that their failure to make the

required political contributions would adversely impact their employment at PMA.

(All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 100l(a)(1) and 2.)

7


Case 1:10-cr-00286-TSE Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 8 of 18 PagelD# 8

COUNT 2

(False Statements)

THE GRAD JURY FURTHER CHAGES THT:

19. The allegations contained in paragraphs i through 7 and paragraphs 10 though 18

of this Indictment are realleged as if fully set fort herein.

20. On or about October 12,2006, in the Eastern District of Virginia and elsewhere,

in a matter within the jurisdiction of a deparment and agency of the United States Governent,

to wit, the FEC, the defendant, PAUL J. MAGLIOCCHETTI, knowingly and willfully caused

the submission of a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation, in

that MAGLIOCCHETTI caused Political Action Committee A to unwittingly fie a materially

false quarerly report with the FEC, which falsely showed that four PMA lobbyists had

contrbuted $5,000 each to the committee when, in trth and in fact, as MAGLIOCCHETTI well

knew, the contrbutions were made by MAGLIOCCHETTI and PMA.

(All in violation of TitIe 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 (a)(2) and 2.)

8



COUNT 3

(False Statements)

21. The allegations contained in paragraphs I through 7 and paragraphs 10 through i 8

of this Indictment are realleged as if fully set fort herein.

22. On or about October 13,2008, in the Eastern District of Virginia and elsewhere,

in a matter withn the jursdiction of a deparent and agency of the United States Governent,

to wit, the FEe, the defendant, PAUL 1. MAGLIOCCHETTI, knowingly and willfully caused

the submission of a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation, in

that MAGLIOCCHEITI caused Campaign Committee A to unwittingly fie a materially false

quarerly report with the FEC, which falsely showed that two individuals known to

MAGLIOCCHETTI had contributed $2,300 each to the committee when, in trth and in fact, as

MAGLIOCCHETTI well knew, the contrbutions were made by MAGLIOCCHETTI and PMA.

(All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 (a) (2) and 2.)

9


Case 1:1 0-cr-00286-TSE Document 1 Filed 08/04/10 Page 10 of 18 PagelD# 10

COUNT 4

(Ilegal Conduit Campaign Contributions)

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:

23. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 though 7 and paragraphs 10 through 18

of this Indictment are hereby realleged as if fully set fort herein.

24. During the calendar year 2005, in the Eastern Distrct of Virginia and elsewhere,

the defendant, PAUL J. MAGLIOCCHETTI, knowingly and willfully violated the Campaign

Act by makng contributions and causing contrbutions to be made in the names of others to

campaign committees and political action committees of varous candidates for federal offce

aggregating $10,000 or more during the 2005 calendar year.

(All in violation of Title 2, United States Code, Sections 441fand 437g(d)(I)(A) and Title 18,United States Code, Section 2.)

10



COUNTS(Illegal Conduit Campaign Contributions)

25. The allegations contaned in paragraphs i though 7 and paragraphs 10 though i 8

of this Indictment are hereby realleged as if fully set forth herein.

26. Durng the calendar year 2006, in the Eastern Distrct of Virginia and elsewhere,

the defendant, PAUL 1. MAGLIOCCHETTI, knowingly and willfully violated the Campaign

Act by makng contributions and causing contributions to be made in the names of others to


aggregating $25,000 or more during the 2006 calendar year.

(All in violation of Title 2, United States Code, Sections 44 lf and 437g(d)(l)(A) and Title 18,United States Code, Section 2.)

11



COUNT 6

(Illegal Conduit Campaign Contributions)

27. The allegations contained in paragraphs i though 7 and paragraphs i 0 though 18


28. Durng the calendar year 2007, in the Eatern Distrct of Virginia and elsewnere,

the defendant, PAUL 1. MAGLIOCCHEITI, knowingly and willfully violated the Campaign

Act by makng contrbutions and causing contnbutions to be made in the names of others to


aggregating $25,000 or more durng the 2007 calendar year.

(All in violation of Title 2, United States Code, Sections 441 f and 437 g( d)( 1 )(A) and Title 18,

United States Code, Section 2.)

12



COUNT 7

(Ilegal Conduit Campaign Contributions)

29. The allegations contained in paragraphs i through 7 and paragraphs 10 tlough 18

of this Indictment are hereby realleged as if fuHy set forth herein.

30. During the calendar year 2008, in the Eastern District of Virginia and elsewhere,

the defendant, PAUL J. MAGLIOCCHETII, knowingly and wilfully violated the Campaign

Act by making contrbutions and causing contrbutions to be made in the names of others to


aggregating $25,000 or more durng the 2008 calendar year.

(All in violation of Title 2, United States Code, Sections 441fand 437g(d)(I)(A) and Title 18,United States Code, Section 2.)

13



COUNTS(lIegal Corporate Campaign Contributions)

31. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 though 7 and paragraphs i 0 though 18



the defendant, PAUL 1. MAGLIOCCHETTI, knowingly and willfully violated the Campaign

Act by making, consenting to, and causing to be made corporate contributions by PMA to


aggregating $2,000 or more in calendar year 2005.

(All in violation of Title 2, United States Code, Sections 441b and 437g(d)(l)(A) and Title 18,United States Code, Section 2.)

14



COUN 9

(Illegal Corporate Campaign Contributions)

33. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 7 and paragraphs 10 through 18



the defendant, PAUL J. MAGLIOCCHETTI, knowingly and willfully violated the Campaign

Act by making, consenting to, and causing to be made corporate contrbutions by PMA to



(All in violation of Title 2, United States Code, Sections 441b and 437g(d)(l)(A) and Title 18,United States Code, Section 2.)

15



COUNT 10(Illegal Corporate Campaign Contributions)

35. The allegations contained in paragraphs i though 7 and paragraphs 10 though i 8



the defendant, PAUL J. MAGLIOCCHEITI, knowingly and willfully violated the Campaign

Act by making, consenting to, and causing to be made corporate contributions by PMA to



(All in violation of Title 2, United States Code, Sections 441b and 437g(d)(1)(A) and Title 18,United States Code, Section 2.)

16



COUNT 11(Illegal Corporate Campaign Contributions)

37. The allegations contained in paragraphs i though 7 and paragrphs 10 though 18

of this Indictment are hereby realleged as iffully set fort herein.


the defendant, PAUL J. MAGLIOCCHEITI, knowingly and willfully violated the Campaign

Act by making, consenting to, and causing to be made corporate contnbutions by PMA to

campaign committees and political action committees of varous candidates for federal office


(All in violation of Title 2, United States Code, Sections 441 band 437g(d)(I)(A) and Title 18,United States Code, Section 2.)

17



Neil H. MacBrideUnited States AttorneyEastern Distrct of Vir inia

DATED this _ day of August 20 i 0A TRUE BILL

Piils.u~1l1 to the F,-OovcmmentAct,tllii ongJl:i1 of this page has been filed

under sel in th Cler's O£ñe.

F oreperson of the Grand Jur

Jack SmithChiefPublic Integrty Section

.._' /3 -1 - 10 By: ~wYD~~)ll-Justin V. ShUT 1~Kevin O. Driscoll g.y.ie

18


Exhibit 11


Case 1:10-cr-00286-TSE Document22 Filed 09/24/10 Page 1 of9 PagelD#57

FIEDIN OPE COlinT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE4

EASTERN mSTRrCT OF VIRGINIAGlERli, 1I,S, fll$TRlC1 CfJm¡

Al ËXANflRIA. VIRGWIA'-~"'-"_._._~...._,~jAlexandria Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICACRIMINAL NO, I: 10-cl-286

v.

Honorable T.S. Ellis, IIIPAUL J. MAGLIOCCHETTI,

Defendant.

PLEA AGREEIVIENT

The United States of America, by and through the undersigned attorneys for the Public

Integrity Section, Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice, the United States

Attorney's Of1ce f:l)l the Eastern District of Virginia (collectively reterredto as the "United

States"), Paul J. MaglioccheUi (hereinafter refeued to as the "defendant"), and the defendant's

counsel enter into the following agreement pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure. The terms of the agreement are as follows:

1. Offense and Maximum Penaltes

The defendant agrees to plead guilty to three counts contained in the indictment fled in

the above-captioned matter. Specitìcally, the defendant agrees to plead guilty to: Count One of

the Indictment, which charges him \-'lith making false statements in violation of Title 18, United

States Code, Section 1001; Count Seven oCthe Indictment, which charges him with making

illegal conduit campaign contributions in violation ofTitlc 2, United States Code, Section 441 f;

and Count Eleven of the Indictment which charges him with making illegal corporate campaign

contributions in violation of Title 2, United States Code, Section 441b,



Count One carres a maximum sentence of 5 years of imprisonment, a fine of $250,000,

and a 3 year term of supervised release. Count Seven carres a maximum sentence of 5 years of

imprisonment, a flne of not less than 300 percent of the amount involved in the violation and not

more than the greater of$50,000 or 1,000 percent of the amount involved in the violation, and a

3 year term of supervised release. Count Eleven cares a maximum sentence of 5 years of

imprisonment, a flne of $250,000, and a 3 year term of supervised release.

2. Factual Basis for the Plea

The defendant wil plead guilty because the defendant is in fact guilty of the charged

offenses. The defendant admits the facts set forth in the statement of facts fied with this plea

agreement and agrees that those facts establish guilt of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable

doubt. The statement of facts, which is hereby incorporated into this plea agreement, constitutes

a stipulation of facts for purposes of Section 1 B 1.2(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines.

3. Assistance and Advice of Counsel

The defendant is satisfied that the defendant's attorneys have rendered effective

assistace. The defendant understands that by entering into this agreement, defendant surenders

certain rights as provided in this agreement. The defendant understands that the rights of

criminal defendants include the following:

a. the right to plead not guilty and to persist in that plea;

b. the right to a jur trial;

c. the right to be represented by counsel - and if necessary have the court

appoint counsel - at trial and at every other stage of the proceedings; and

d. the right at trial to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, to be

protected from compelled self-incrimination, to testify and present

evidence, and to compel the attendance of witnesses.

2



4. Role of the Court and the Probation Offce

The defendant understands that the Court has jurisdiction and authority to impose any

sentence within the statutory maximum described above but that the Court wil deterine the

defendant's actual sentence in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The defendant understands

that the Court has not yet determined a sentence and that any estimate of the advisory sentencing

range under the U.S. Sentencing Commission's Sentencing Guidelines Manual the defendant

may have received from the defendant's counsel, the United States, or the Probation Offce, is a

prediction, not a promise, and is not binding on the United States, the Probation Offce, or the

Court. Additionally, pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 125

S. Ct. 738 (2005), the Court, after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), may

impose a sentence above or below the advisory sentencing range, subject only to review by

higher cours for reasonableness. The United States makes no promise or representation

concerning what sentence the defendant wil receive, and the defendant canot withdraw a guilty

plea based upon the actual sentence.

Further, in accordance with Rule 1 1 (c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,

the United States and the defendant agree to recommend that, for purposes of calculating the

advisory range under the Sentencing Guidelines for the conduct specifically described in the

Statement of Facts, the counts contained in the indictment he grouped pursuant to U.S.S.G. §

3DL.2 and that, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3DL.3, the following offense level computation applies:

Base Offense Level: +8V.S.S.G. §§ 2C1.8(a), 2B1. 1(c)(3)

2-Level Upward Adjustment for 30 or More Transactions +2V.S.S.G. § 2CL.8(b)(4)

12-Level Upward Adjustment for More than $200,000 +12U.S.S.G. §§ 2CL.8(b)(l) and 2B1.(H)

3



4-Level Upward Adjustment for Leadership Role +4U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(a)

Total Offense Level 26In addition to the parties' agreed recommendation regarding the guidelines range, the

parties agree that the United States may provide information to the Cour and the U.S. Probation

Offcer pursuant to i 8 U.S.c. § 3661 about additional campaign contributions involving the

defendant that are not set forth in the Statement of Facts. The paries disagree about whether the

additional campaign contrbutions constitute a violation of law. The United States retains the

ability to argue at sentencing that the additional campaign contributions are ilegal and should be

considered by the court in determining the appropnate sentence within the recommended

guidelines range. The United States agrees, however, that even if the Cour detennes that the

additional campaign contrbutions were ilegal and constitute relevant conduct - thereby

waranting an increase in the defendant's offense level- it wil not recommend a sentence

beyond the recommended guidelines range set fort above, because a varance would be

appropriate to reduce the guidelines range to the guidelines range recommended above. The

defendant retains the nght to argue that the additional campaign contnbutions did not constitute

a violation of law and, therefore, should not be considered at sentencing.

The United States and the defendant agree that the defendant has assisted the governent

in the investigation and prosecution of the defendant's own misconduct by timely notifying

authonties of the defendant's intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the

governent to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the governent and the Cour to allocate

their resources effciently. If the defendant qualifies for a two-level decrease in offense level

pursuant to V.S.S.G. § 3EL.1(a) and the offense level pnor to the operation of that section is a

level 16 or greater, the governent agrees to fie, pursuant to V.S.S.G. § 3El.(b), a motion

4



prior to, or at the time of, sentencing for an additional one-level decrease in the defendant's

offense leveL.

The defendant understands that these stipulations and agreements as to guideline factors

are not binding on the Probation Offce or the Court.

5. Waiver of Appeal, FOIA, and Privacy Act Rights

The defendant also understands that Title i 8, United States Code, Section 3742 affords a

defendant the right to appeal the sentence imposed. Nonetheless, the defendant knowingly

waives the right to appeal the conviction and any sentence within the statutory maximum

described above (or the manner in which that sentence was determined) on the grounds set forth

in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742 or on any ground whatsoever, in exchange for the

concessions made by the United States in this plea agreement. This agreement does not affect

the rights or obligations ofthe United States as set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section

3742(b). The defendant also hereby waives all rights, whether asserted directly or by a

representative, to request or receive from any departent or agency of the United States any

records pertaining to the investigation or prosecution of this case, including without limitation

any records that may be sought under the Freedom of Information Act, Title 5, United States

Code, Section 552, or the Privacy Act, Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a.

6. Special Assessment

Before sentencing in this case, the defendant agrees to pay a mandatory special

assessment of one hundred dollars ($ i 00.00) per count of conviction.

7. Payment of Monetary Penalties

The defendant understands and agrees that, puruant to Title 18, United States Code,

Section 3613, whatever monetary penalties are imposed by the Cour wil be due and payable

immediately and subject to immediate enforcement by the United States as provided for in

5



Section 3613. Furtermore, the defendant agrees to provide all ofms financial infonnation to

the United States and the Probation Offce and, if requested, to paricipate in a pre-sentencing

debtor's examnation. If the Cour imposes a schedule of payments, the defendant understands

that the schedule of payments is merely a minimum schedule of payments and not the only

method, nor a limitation on the methods, available to the United States to enforce the judgment.

If the defendant is incarcerated, the defendant agrees to participate in the Bureau of Prisons'

Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, regardless of whether the Court specifically directs

paricipation or imposes a schedule of payments.

8. Immunity from Further Prosecution

If the Court accepts the defendant's plea of guilty and the defendant fulfills each of the

tenns and conditions of this agreement, the Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division, United

States Deparment of Justice, and the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern Distrct of

Virginia agree that it wil not further prosecute the defendant for any crimes described in the

indictment or statement of facts or for any conduct of the defendant now known to the

undersigned attorneys from the above offces and to the law enforcement agents workig with

those attorneys on the present investigation.

9. Dismissal of Other Counts

As a condition of the execution of this agreement, and the Cour's acceptace of the

defendant's plea of guilty, the United States wil move to dismiss the remaining counts of the

indictment against the defendant.

10. Breach of the Plea Agreement and Remedies

This agreement is effective when signed by the defendant, the defendant's attorney, and

an attorney for the United States. The defendant agrees to entry of this plea agreement at the

date and time scheduled with the Court by the United States (in consultation with the defendant's

6



attorneys). If the defendant withdraws from this agreement, or commts or attempts to commt

any additional federal, state or local cnmes, or intentionally gives materially false, incomplete,

or misleading testimony or infonnation, or otherwise violates any provision of ths agreement,

then:

a, The United States wil be released from its obligations under ths

agreement. The defendant, however, may not withdraw the guilty plea

entered pursuant to this agreement;

b The defendant wil be subject to prosecution for any federal cnmina1

violation, including, but not limited to, peijur and obstrction of justice,

that is not time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations on the date

this agreement is signed. Notwithstanding the subsequent expiration of

the statute of limitations, in any such prosecution, the defendant agrees to

waive any statute-of-limitations defense; and

c. Any prosecution, including the prosecution that is the subject of ths

agreement, may be premised upon any information provided, or

statements made, by the defendant, and all such information, statements,

and leads derived therefrom may be used against the defendant. The

defendant waives any nght to claim that statements made before or after

the date of ths agreement, including the statement of facts accompanying

this agreement or adopted by the defendant and any other statements made

puruant to this or any other agreement with the United States, should be

excluded or suppressed under Fed. R. Evid. 410, Fed. R Cri. P. 11(1),

the Sentencing Guidelines or any other provision of the Constitution or

federal law.

7



Any alleged breach of this agreement by either party shall be detennined by the Court in

an appropriate proceeding at which the defendant's disclosures and documentary evidence shaH

be admissible and at which the moving party shall be required to establish a breach of the plea

agreement by a preponderance of the evidence.

i 1. Nature of the Agreement and Modifïcntions

This written agreement constitutes the complete plea agreement between the United

States, the defendant, and the defendant's counseL. The defendant and his attorneys

acknowledge that no threats, promises, or representations have been made, nor agreements

reached, other than those set forth in writing in this plea agreement, to cause the defendant to

plead guilty. Ao.ny modification of this plea agreement shall be valid only as set fOlth in writing

in a supplemental or revised plea agrccinent signed by all parties.

Respectfì.i1ly subrnitted,

Neil H. MacBrideUnited States AttomcyEast~J.::lD\StlÍct of Yirginia

/,"'~'/../';.? /'1 \.,,/~/" ,,-:~i// Iß /By:/"~/¡// l/L I.JI/-I/)/'// Mark D _ hýffe

Assistant United States Attorney

By:

Jack SmithChiefPublic rntqgr:ity Section

lj' /'.. ,~

,'/_,,/'/,r;~~¡¡

M. Kendall DayJustin V.. ShurKevin O. DriscollTrial Attorneys

8



Deferidants Signature: I hereby agree that I have consulted with my attorneys and fully

understand all rights with respect to the criminal infonnation. Further, I fully understand all

rights with respect to 18 U.S.C § 3553 and the provisions of the Sentencing Guidelìnes Manual

that may apply in my case. I have read this plea agreement and carefully reviewed eveiy part of

it with my attorneys, I understand this agreement and voluntarily agree to it.

o - t.\ Q--\O'Date: '\ \J

'..''',..,,-''

Defense Counsel Signature: We are counsel tòr the defendant in this case. We have fully

explained to the defendant the defendant's rights wíth respect to the criminal inf(mnation.

Further, we have reviewed 18 U.S.c. § 3553 and the Sentencing Guidelines Manual, and we

have flilly explained to the defendant the provisions that may apply in this case. We have

carefully reviewed every part of this plea agreement with the defendant. To our knowledge, the

defendant's decision to enter into this agreement is an infol111Cd and voluntary onc.

Date: q - :/\0-'10 \AJ~ f:. trJJJwillim E. Lawler, Esq.

Amy Lamoureux Riella, Esq.Vinson & Elkins LLP1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Suite 600'vVashington, D.C. 20004Attorneys for the Defendant

9


Exhibit 12



ßAs'rERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

FIIJIJ

E.. .. .1,~i_ar.'._'....I.'!~.¡.~.r~D~Irr_._

~'¡ r . ,1\11 ? 4 JCLERK, tis. IJlsmleiii

A1EXAH.IJRlfI, VIfGINJ¡i

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

Alexandria Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Honorable T.S. Ells, II

CRIMINAL NO. 1:10-c1'-286v.

PAUL J. MAGLIOCCHETTI,

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Were this matter to go to trial, the United States of Ainerìca would prove the following

facts beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. PAUL 1. MAGLIOCCHETTI, the defendant, was the founder and owner of PM A

Group, Tnc. (iÙI11erly known as Paul Magliocchetti Associates, Inc.) (hereinatler referred to as

"PMA").

2. PMA was a lobbying fìrm incorporated in the State of Virginia and located in

Arlington, Virginia, within the Eastern District of Virginia. PMA ha.d as clients various private

companies and individuals, including many that worked in the defense industry. On theìr behalí~

PMA acting through MAGLIOCCHETTI regularly sought funding or benefits in the form of

federal appropriations, commonly known as earmarks,

3. As the founder and president of the company that bore his name,

MAGLTOCCHETTI sought to increase PMA's inl1uence, power, and prestige - both among

PMA's base of current and potential clients as well as among the elected public oftìcials to

whom PMA and its lobbyists sought access. Political contributions to campaign committees

and political action committees ofvaiious candidates for federal office (collectively, "tèderal


Case 1: 1 0-cr-00286- TSE Document 23 Filed 09/24/10 Page 2 of 4 Pagel D# 67

campaign contributions") were a key par of MAGLIOCCHEITI's plan to increase PMA's

profie and its profitability.

4. In an effort to achieve his goals of increasing PMA's visibility and influence,

MAGLIOCCHETTI made hundreds of thousands of dollars in ilegal conduit and corporate

federal campaign contributions. A ware of the strict limits on individual federal campaign

contrbutions - and the outright ban on corporate contributions - MAGLIOCCHETTI,

unbeknownst to the federal campaigns, funneled personal and corporate money to frends, family

members, and PMA lobbyists in order to make these unlawful contributions.

5. From 2005 through 2008, MAGLIOCCHETTI used members of his family,

friends, and PMA lobbyists to make $386,250.00 in ilegal federal campaign contrbutions.

MAGLIOCCHETII directly and indirectly instrcted these individuals to write checks out of

their personal checking accounts to specific candidates for federal offce. At various times, for

the purpose of making these contributions, MAGLIOCCHETTI advanced funds to or reimbursed

these individuals using personal and corporate monies.

6. MAGLIOCCHETTI caused various campaign and political action committees to

unwittingly file reports with the FEC which falsely stated that the conduits had made federal

campaign contrbutions when in truth and in fact each contribution was made by

MAGLIOCCHETII or PMA. In doing so, it was MAGLIOCCHETTI's intent to conceal from

the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") the fact that MAGLIOCCHETTI and PMA were the

true source of the funds for these ilegal federal campaign contributions.

7. MAGLIOCCHETTI engaged in the conduct described above knowingly,

corrptly, and wilfully and not because of accident, mistake, or other innocent reason.

2



Respectfully submitted,

Neil H. MacBrideUnited States AttorneyEastern District of Virginia

By:D.

Assistant United States Attorney

3

Jack SmithChiefPublic Integrity Section

By;M. Kendall DayJustin V. ShuI'

Kevin O. DriscollTrial Attorneys


Case 1:10-cr-00286-TSE Document 23 Filed 09/24/10 Page 4 of4 PagelD# 69

After consulting with my aHomeys and pursuant to the plea agreement entered

into this day between the defendant, Paul 1. Magliocchetti, and the United States, I

hereby stipulate that the above Statcment of Facts is truc and accurate, and that had the

matter proceeded to trial, the United States would have proved the same beyond a

reasonable doubt

Date: q- çG -~ "/, l

We are Paul J. Magliocchetti's attorneys. We have carefully reviewed the above

Statement of Facts with him. To our know ledge, his decision to stipulate to these facts is

an informed and voluntary one.

Date: q -~.J 0 JA uk t. LJ utWilliam E. Lawler, Esq.Ainy Lamoureux RielIa, Esq.Vinson & Elkins LLP1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Suite 600Washington, D.c' 20004A Homeys for the Defendant

4


for the district of columbia · united states district court for the district of columbia...

Documents