You are on page 1of 54


citizens for responsibility
and ethics in washington

April 1,2011

Melanie Ann Pustay
Office of Information Policy
U.S. Department of Justice
1425 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 11050
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Re: Freedom ofInformation Act Appeal in Request No . 1161324-000

Dear Ms. Pustay:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") hereby appeals the
refusal of the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation ("FBI") to process and release to CREW any
records responsive to our Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request of February 7, 2011.

By letter dated and sent by facsimile on February 7,2011 , CREW requested witness
statements , investigation reports, prosecution memoranda, and FBI 302 reports related to several
investigations in which the late Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) is named or otherwise identified. The
investigations at issue involved the following individuals and entities: Paul Magliocchetti
Associates ("PMA"), Paul Magliocchetti, Concurrent Technologies Corporation, Commonwealth
Research Institute , Kuchera Corporation, Kuchera Defense Systems , Kuchera Industries , LBK
Ranch , Bill Kuchera, Ronald Kuchera, Coherent Systems International, Richard Ianieri, KSA
Consulting, Robert "Kit" Murtha, and Mountaintop Technologies. CREW explicitly excluded
from its request records covered by grand jury secrecy pursuant to Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure. A copy of the request is attached as Exhibit A.

CREW also sought a public interest fee waiver , explaining that the requested records are
likely to contribute to greater public awareness of alleged malfeasance and possible criminal
behavior by Rep. Murtha, as well as any decision by DOl whether to bring charges against him.
As CREW explained, DOl and the FBI have conducted several investigations related to lobbying
of Rep. Murtha and earmarks he obtained for various organizations and clients of lobbying firms.
CREW further explained that Rep. Murtha died on February 8, 2010, and that the FBI already has
released certain records related to him.

As CREW also explained, while DOl did not prosecute Rep. Murtha, his activities still
may have been illegal or violations of the rules of the House, and the requested records would
shed light on them. CREW further explained these documents would shed light on the conduct
of DOl and the FBI in conducting the investigations, and any decision whether to bring charges
against him.

1400 Eye Street, NW., Suite 450, Wash ington, D.C. 20005 I 202.408.5565 phone I 202.588.5020 fax I
Office of Information Policy
April 1, 2011
Page 2

CREW specifically noted its willingness to discuss with the FBI the scope of its request
and whether it can be narrowed or modified to better enable the FBI to process it.

In response, the FBI sent CREW a form letter dated March 1, 20 11 (attached as Exhibit
B) asserting that the records requests are located in investigative files that are exempt from
disclosure pursuant to Exemption 7(A) of the FOIA. Specifically, the FBI asserted "there is a
pending or prospective law enforcement proceeding relevant to these responsive records; and that
release of the information contained in these responsive records could reasonably be expected to
interfere with the enforcement proceedings."

The FBI improperly withheld the requested records. Exemption 7(A) permits the
withholding of "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes ... to the extent
that production of such law enforcement records or information ... could reasonably be expected
to interfere with enforcement proceedings." 5 U.S.c. § 552(b)(7)(A). The purpose of Exemption
7(A) is '''to prevent harm to the government's case in court.'" NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber
Co., 437 U.S. 214,227 (1978) (internal citation omitted); see also North v. Walsh, 881 F.2d
1088, 1097 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (Exemption 7(A) is "designed to block the disclosure of information
that will genuinely harm the government's case in an enforcement proceeding or impede an
investigation"). Exemption 7(A) does "not endlessly protect material simply because it was in an
investigatory file." Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. at 230. Law enforcement records may
be withheld only where release "is likely to cause some distinct harm." Kay v. FCC, 976 F.
Supp. 23, 38 (D.D.C. 1997); see also Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v.
Us. Dep 't ofJustice, 658 F. Supp. 2d 217,226 (D.D.C. 2009)

Disclosing the requested records will not interfere with any enforcement proceeding
related to Rep. Murtha. Rep. Murtha died in February 2010 and therefore there can be no
enforcement proceeding against him.

To the extent the FBI is contending disclosure of the requested records could interfere
with other enforcement proceedings, disclosure of records from an active investigation is not
foreclosed simply because the investigation is open. Banks v. Dep 't ofJustice, 700 F. Supp. 2d
9,18 (D.D.C. 2010) ("The mere fact that the underlying investigation remains open is not a
sufficient basis for withholding the entire case file; such a decision is justified only on a showing
that the release of each category of documents could reasonably be expected to interfere with
enforcement proceedings."). Even if disclosure of some of the requested records could, if
released, interfere with ongoing enforcement proceedings, the FBI cannot withhold all of the
records. While CREW does not know what records the FBI possesses that relate to the
investigations at issue, it is very unlikely all of them are related to ongoing proceedings and their
disclosure reasonably could be expected to interfere with those proceedings. It is much more
likely that at least some of the requested records relate solely to Rep. Murtha, and their release
Office of Information Policy
April 1,2011
Page 3

would not cause harm to any open proceedings.

Similarly, the FBI did not comply with its duty under the FOIA to disclose all non-
exempt, segregable portions of the records. The FOIA requires agencies to "disclose any
reasonably segregable portion of a record . .. after deletions of the portions which are exempt. "
5 U.S.c. § 552(b) . "[T]he focus in the FOIA is information, not documents, and an agency
cannot justify withholding an entire document simply by showing that it contains some exempt
material." Mead Data Central, Inc. v. United States Dep 't ofAir Force, 566 F.2d 242, 260 (D.C.
Cir. 1977); see also Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 185 F.3d 898, 907 (D.C. Cir.
1999). Even if some of the requested records contain information related to open law
enforcement proceedings and disclosure of that information could reasonably be expected to
interfere with those proceedings, it is again very unlikely all of the information in the requested
records is exempt. The FBI should have redacted any legitimately exempt information and
disclosed the remainder of the records.

Accordingly, the FBI's initial determination that all of the requested records are exempt
under Exemption 7(A) plainly is in error and must be reversed.

Respectfully submitted,

! -k~ /.~/
Adam J. Rappaport
Senior Counsel

CREW ,.. and
citizens.for. responsihility
ethics In washtngton

February 7,2011

By facsimile: 540-868-4995

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Attn: FOI/PA Request
Record/Information Dissemination Section
170 Marcel Drive
Winchester, VA 22602-4843

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Sir/Madam:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") makes this request for
records, regardless of format, medium, or physical characteristics, and including electronic
records and information, audiotapes, videotapes and photographs, pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 552, et seq., and U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ")
regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 16.

Specifically, CREW requests witness statements, investigation reports, prosecution
memoranda, and Federal Bureau ofInvestigation ("FBI") 302 reports not covered by grand jury
secrecy pursuant to Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure related to several
investigations in which the late Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) is named or otherwise identified. The
investigations at issue involved the following individuals and entities: Paul Magliocchetti
Associates ("PMA"), Paul Magliocchetti, Concurrent Technologies Corporation, Commonwealth
Research Institute, Kuchera Corporation, Kuchera Defense Systems, Kuchera Industries, LBK
Ranch, Bill Kuchera, Ronald Kuchera, Coherent Systems International, Richard Ianieri, KSA
Consulting, Robert "Kit" Murtha, and Mountaintop Technologies. CREW's request includes,
but is not limited to, records related to any decision by DOJ whether to bring criminal charges
against Rep. Murtha.

Please search for responsive records regardless of format, medium, or physical
characteristics. Where possible, please produce records electronically, in PDF or TIF format on a
CD-ROM. We seek records of any kind, including electronic records, audiotapes, videotapes,
and photographs. Our request includes any letters, emails, facsimiles, telephone messages, voice
mail messages, and transcripts, notes, or minutes of any meetings, telephone conversations, or
discussions. Our request also includes any attachments to these records.

If it is your position that any portion of the requested records is exempt from disclosure,
CREW requests that you provide it with 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 are aware, a
Vaughn index must describe each document claimed as exempt with sufficient specificity "to

1400 Eye Street, NW., Suite 450, Washington, D.C. 20005 I 202.408.5565 phone I 202.588.~'i020 fax I
Rena Y. Kim
February 7, 2011
Page 2

permit a reasoned judgment as to whether the material is actually exempt under FOIA."
Founding Church ofScientology v, Bell, 603 F.2d 945, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Moreover, the
Vaughn index must "describe each document or portion thereof withheld, and for each
withholding it must discuss the consequences of supplying the sought-after information." King v,
Us. Dep 't ofJustice, 830 F.2d 210,223-24 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasis added). Further, "the
withholding agency must supply' a relatively detailed justification, specifically identifying the
reasons why a particular exemption is relevant and correlating those claims with the particular
part of a withheld document to which they apply. '" ld. at 224 (citing Mead Data Central v, Us.
Dep 't ofthe Air Force, 566 F,2d 242, 251 (D.C. Cir. 1977)).

In the event some portions of the requested records are properly exempt from disclosure,
please disclose any reasonably segregable non-exempt portions of the requested records. See 5
U.S.C. § 552(b). Ifit is your position that a document contains non-exempt segments, but that
those non-exempt segments are so dispersed throughout the document as to make 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, Claims of
nonsegregability must be made with the same degree of detail as required for claims of
exemptions in a Vaughn index. If a request is denied in whole, please state specifically that it is
not reasonable to segregate portions of the record for release.

Please note that Rep, Murtha died on February 8, 2010, See Carol D, Leonnig and Martin
Weil, John MUliha dies; longtime congressman was master of pork-barrel politics, The
Washington Post, February 9, 2010 (attached as Exhibit A). Further, we are aware the FBI
already has released certain records related to Rep, Murtha. See

Finally, CREW welcomes the opportunity to discuss with you whether and to what extent
this request can be narrowed or modified to better enable the FBI to process it within the ForA's
deadlines. Adam 1. Rappaport, the CREW attorney handling this matter, can be reached at (202)
408-5565 or

Fee Waiver Request

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and 28 C.F,R. § 16.11(k), CREW
requests a waiver of fees associated with processing this request for records. The subject of this
request concerns the operations of the federal government and expenditures, and the disclosures
will likely contribute to a better understanding of relevant government procedures by CREW and
the general public in a significant way. Moreover, the request is primarily and fundamentally for
non-commercial purposes. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). See, e.g., McClellan Ecological v.
Carlucci, 835 F.2d 1282, 1285 (9th Cir. 1987).
Rena Y. Kim
February 7, 2011
Page 3

Specifically, these records are likely to contribute to greater public awareness of potential
malfeasance by Rep. Murtha and others and why, despite this apparent malfeasance, DOJ did not
prosecute him. DOJ and the FBI have conducted several investigations related to lobbying of
Rep. Murtha and earmarks he obtained for various organizations and clients of lobbying firms.
These included an extensive investigation of the PMA Group, a lobbying firm established and
run by former Rep. Murtha aide Paul Magliocchetti. See David D. Kirkpatrick and Charlie
Savage, Star Lobbyist Closes Shop Amid F.B.I. Inquiry, The New York Times, March 29, 2009
(attached as Exhibit B). PMA lobbyists and their clients contributed nearly $2.4 million to Rep.
Murtha from 1989-2009, and Rep. Murtha obtained $7.6 million in earmarks for PMA clients
from 2007-2009. See Larry Margasak, House ethics panel reviewing campaign money,
Associated Press, June 12, 2009 (attached as Exhibit C). In January 2011, Mr. Magliocchetti
was sentenced to 27 months in prison for violating campaign finance laws. See Maria Glad,
Former lobbyist gets 27 months for campaign finance violations, The Washington Post, January
7,2011 (attached as Exhibit D). DOJ and the FBI also investigated Concurrent Technologies
Corporation, a non-profit government contractor Rep. Murtha founded and a PMA client, and its
subsidiary the Commonwealth Research Institute. See David D. Kirkpatrick, As Scandal Swirls,
a House Power Broker Is Losing his Clout, The New York Times, April 26, 2009 (attached as
Exhibit E); Robert O'Harrow Jr., Pentagon, FBI Probing Air Force Contracts, The Washington
Post, April 18, 2008 (attached as Exhibit F). Rep. Murtha directed millions of dollars in
earmarks to these organizations. See Robert O'Harrow, Jr., A Contractor, Charity, And Magnet
for Federal Earmarks, The Washington Post, November 2,2007 (attached as Exhibit G).

DOJ and the FBI also investigated several other defense contractors with close ties to
Rep. Murtha. In January 2009, the FBI raided the headquarters of the Kuchera Corporation and
the homes of its two top executives, Bill and Ronald Kuchera. See Carol D. Leonnig and Alice
Crites, Firms Tied to Murtha Have Troubled Past, The Washington Post, June 5, 2009 (attached
as Exhibit H). Kuchera employees and their families donated about $90,000 to Rep. Murtha and
his political action committee and Rep. Murtha held a fundraiser at Bill Kuchera's ranch. Id.; see
also Lindsay Renick Mayer, Murtha's Warchest Includes Cash from Embattled Defense
Contractor Kuchera,, May 29,2009 (attached as Exhibit I). In addition, Rep.
Murtha obtained approximately $50 million in earmarks for the company. Id.; Leonnig and
Crites, Wash. Post, June 5, 2009. DOJ later indicted Richard Ianieri, chief executive of Coherent
Systems International, in a kickback scheme involving a Kuchera company and misuse of an
earmark Rep. Murtha obtained. See Paul Singer, DOJ Says Murtha Earmark Money Was Illicitly
Distributed, Roll Call, July 9, 2009 (attached as Exhibit J). Coherent was a client of KSA
Consulting, a lobbying firm that employed Rep. Murtha's brother, Robert "Kit" Murtha. Id.
DOJ also investigated earmarks Rep. Murtha directed toward another KSA client, Mountaintop
Technologies. See Carol D. Leonnig, Justice Dept. Investigates Pa. Contractor Tied to Murtha,
The Washington Post, May 25, 2009 (attached as Exhibit K).

The requested documents would shed light on the conduct of DOJ and the FBI in
Rena Y. Kim
February 7,2011
Page 4

conducting these investigations, and DOl's decision whether to bring charges against Rep.
Murtha. In addition, while DOJ did not prosecute Rep. Murtha, his activities still may have been
illegal or violations of the rules of the House, and the requested records would shed light on

CREW is a non-profit corporation, organized under section 501(c)(3) ofthe Internal
Revenue Code. CREW is committed to protecting the public's right to be aware of the activities
of government officials and to ensuring the integrity of those officials. CREW uses a
combination of research, litigation, and advocacy to advance its mission. The release of
information garnered through this request is not in CREW's financial interest. CREW will
analyze the information responsive to this request, and will share its analysis with the public,
either through memoranda, reports, or press releases. In addition, CREW will disseminate any
documents it acquires from this request to the public through its website,, which also includes links to thousands of pages of documents CREW
acquired through its multiple FOIA requests as well as documents related to CREW's litigation
and agency complaints, and through www.scribd.corn.

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

News Media Fee Waiver Reguest

CREW also asks that it not be charged search or review fees for this request because
CREW qualifies as a "representative of the news media" pursuant to the FOIA and SEC
regulation 17 C.F.R. § 200.80(e)(lO). In Nat 'I Sec. Archive v, Us. Dep 't ofDefense, 880 F.2d
1381,1386 (D.C. Cir. 1989), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found the
National Security Archive was a representative of the news media under the FOIA, relying on the
FOIA's legislative history, which indicates the phrase "representative of the news media" is to be
interpreted broadly; "it is critical that the phrase 'representative of the news media' be broadly
interpreted if the act is to work as expected. '" In fact, any person or organization which
regularly publishes or disseminates information to the public, , . should qualify for waivers as a
'representative ofthe news media, '" 132 Congo Rec. S14298 (daily ed. Sept. 30,1986) (emphasis
added), cited in id.

CREW routinely and systematically disseminates information to the public in several
ways. First, CREW maintains a frequently visited website, 'Vvww.citizensforethics,org, that
received 53,145 page views in January 2011. In addition, CREW posts all of the documents it
receives under the FOIA on, and that site has received 607,799 visits to
CREW's documents since April 14,2010.

Second, since May 2007 CREW has published an online newsletter, CREWCuts, that
currently has 16,960 subscribers. CREWCuts provides subscribers with regular updates
Rena Y. Kim
February 7, 2011
Page 5

regarding CREW's activities and information the organization has received from government
entities. A complete archive of past CREWCuts is available at tizensforcthics. org/newsletter.

Third, CREW publishes a blog, Citizens blogging for responsibility and ethics in
Washington, that reports on and analyzes newsworthy developments regarding government ethics
and corruption. The blog, located at, also provides links
that direct readers to other news articles and commentary on these issues. CREW's blog had
4,045 page views in January 2011.

Finally, CREW has published numerous reports to educate the public about government
ethics and corruption. See Record Chaos, which examines agency compliance with electronic
record keeping responsibilities; The Revolving Door, a comprehensive look into the post-
government activities of24 former members of President Bush's cabinet; and Those Who Dared:
30 Officials Who Stood Up For Our Country. These and all other CREW's reports are available
at http://www.citizensforethics.orglreports.

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


If you have any questions about this request or foresee any problems in releasing fully the
requested records please contact me at (202) 408-5565. Also, if CREW's request for a fee
waiver is not granted in full, please contact our office immediately upon making such a
determination. Please send the requested records to Adam J. Rappaport, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 450, Washington, D.C.


Adam J. Rappaport
Senior Counsel

John Murtha dies; longtime congressman was master of pork-barrel politics

tI)e Wtl!1binglton Jlold
John Murtha dies; longtime
congressman was master of
pork-barrel politics
By Carol D. Leonnig and Martin Weil
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 9, 2010; AO 1 A branch nearby...
Rep. John P. Murtha CD-Pa.), a Vietnam War veteran
who staunchly supported military spending and became
a master of pork-barrel politics, died Monday at
Virginia Hospital Center. The 19-term lawmaker died C.tPI "'~!OIlC R~nl<
from complications of gallbladder surgery. He was 77.

Elected to Congress in 1974 from a southwestern Pennsylvania district that has been economically
devastated by the decline of the nation's coal-mining and steel industries, the gruff and jowly Murtha was
beloved by his constituents for tapping billions of dollars in federal money to seed new industries there.

He was revered among Democrats -- and even some Republicans -- for his skill in using the power of the
federal purse to make kings and deals. A right-hand man of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (DsCalif.), he
was considered one of the most influential lawmakers on Capitol Hill and credited with her ascension.

Critics dubbed Murtha, the chairman of the powerful subcommittee that controls Pentagon spending, the
"King of Pork" for the volume of taxpayer money he could direct to the area around his home town of
Johnstown. Most of the largess came in defense and military research contracts he steered to companies
based in his district or with small offices there.

The former Marine became a mentor to lawmakers trying to learn how to work Washington's power
levers but also a symbol of the controversial congressional practice of "earmarking." In that process,
lawmakers can add federal money to the budget to give no-bid contracts to pet projects and companies
of their choosing. Murtha faced a drumbeat of questions about possible ethical conflicts in his earmarks,
as executives and lobbyists for the firms receiving the earmarks were among his most generous campaign

Murtha was firmly unapologetic, saying it was his duty to help his district create jobs and U.S. troops
gain new research and tools to help them in battle. To a television crew following him in a House office
building with questions about potential conflicts, he held up his miniature red, page-worn copy of the

"What it says is the Congress of the United States appropriates the money," he said. "Got that?"

Volunteered for combat

John Patrick Murtha Jr. was born June 17, 1932, in New Martinsville, W.Va., and raised in
Westmoreland County, Pa. He long credited the resilient women in his family, including his mother, with
being key to his success. His father, an alcoholic, died early. Murtha said he didn't drink for that reason,
and despite the many political fundraisers where a congressman is either honored guest or host, Murtha

1 of3 2/7/201112:18 PM
John Murtha dies; longtime congressman was master of pork-barrel politics!wp-dyn/contentlarticle/2010102/08/. ..

was known for making an early appearance and an early departure.

He entered the Marine Corps in 1952, during the Korean War period, and served until 1955. He returned
to Johnstown to run the family carwash and finish his undergraduate degree from the University of
Pittsburgh in 1962, and he joined the Marine Corps Reserve. During the Vietnam conflict, he
volunteered for combat and served near Da Nang in 1966 and 1967.

In 1955, he married Joyce Bell. She survives, along with their daughter, Donna Murtha; twin sons, Pat
Murtha and John M. Murtha; and three grandchildren.

Back from Vietnam, Murtha was recruited by the local Democratic Party to challenge longtime Rep.
John P. Saylor (R) and presented himself as hawkish on military affairs. "To me, it is academic whether
we should be in Vietnam," the young veteran said at the time. "Our men are fighting their hearts out so
we can sit at home and enjoy the luxuries of this great nation. We have to unite."

He lost that race but won election to the Pennsylvania House. When Saylor died in office, Murtha won a
special election to the U.S. House in 1974. In a district with a strong conservative tradition, Murtha's
victory was taken in part as a rejection of then-President Richard M. Nixon. His slogan: "One honest
man can make a difference."

Murtha, whose military decorations included the Bronze Star and two awards of the Purple Heart, was
one of the first Vietnam veterans to sit in the House. His district returned him regularly to office, and
after 10 years Murtha had quietly established himself as a key Capitol Hill player who could woo
lawmakers of divergent views to join forces.

"His reputation is, if you're going to put a coalition together, you have to have Murtha," then-Rep. Mike
Synar (DvOkla.) told The Washington Post for a 1985 profile of Murtha.

In one of the more painful moments of his career, Murtha was listed as an unindictcd co-conspirator in
the Abscam scandal of the late 1970s. As a result of the FBI undercover operation, several Capitol Hill
figures were charged with agreeing to pay bribes to agents posing as representatives of Arab sheiks.
Murtha was taped talking with an undercover agent about his interest in helping his district, but he was
not charged and said he did nothing wrong.

In 2005, he became a darling of the Democratic antiwar movement when the prominent hawk
announced that he was in favor of withdrawing troops from Iraq. He had supported the resolution to go
to war in 2002, but he later denounced the Bush administration's war effort as badly planned, calling it "a
flawed policy wrapped in illusion."

Murtha lost his shot, however, to become House majority leader after Democrats retook control of the
House in 2006. He had successfully led Pelosi's campaign to be speaker at that time, but some colleagues
argued that he could be a political liability in the leadership because of what they called his old-style

Ethics investigations

In the past two years, Murtha and several close associates came under the scrutiny of ethics and
investigative panels.

In 2008, the FBI raided a powerhouse lobbying firm, PMA Group, whose founder, Paul Magliocchetti,
was a close friend of Murtha's and which had had unique success in winning earmarks from Murtha for

2 of 3 217!201112:18PM
J ohn Murtha dies; longtime congressman was master of pork-barrel politics!wp-dynicontentJarticle/20 10/02/08/. ..

its clients.

In January 2009, federal investigators raided Kuchera Industries, a Pennsylvania company that Murtha
had helped grow with more than $100 million in military contracts and earmarks. The company was
suspended from receiving further Navy contracts pending an investigation into allegations that the
company had defrauded the government in its billing.

In May 2009, the Justice Department subpoenaed records from the offices of a Murtha protege, Rep.
Peter J. Visclosky CD-Ind). Investigators were looking into allegations that Visclosky's chief of staff, who
announced his resignation shortly after the subpoena, had pressured lobbyists to donate to Visclosky's
campaign in exchange for earmarks for their clients, two sources familiar with the probe said,

In December 2009, the Office of Congressional Ethics reported that it saw no reason to continue its
investigation of Murtha's actions on behalf of PMA Group and recommended that the House ethics
committee take no action against him.

In March 2009, Murtha told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that every lawmaker looks out for his own: "If
I'm corrupt, it's because I take care of my district. , .. Every president would like to have all the power
and not have Congress change anything. But we're closest to the people."

He had a bravado that even his critics admired, in part because he could often back up his seemingly big
talk. He publicly squared off with many a heavyweight, including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates,
then- Vice President Richard B. Cheney and even a few presidents.

Last month, Murtha chuckled when asked about President Obama's assertion that he was going to freeze
all discretionary spending.

"Well, he can call for it, but we're the guys who make the decision," the congressman said, "I always
remind them of that. "

Sponsored Links

#1 Pro Investment Tool
Get stock news, feeds, charts & the best investment ideas! Free limited time offer.
WNW, Prolvlarketl.ive, com/free_offer

Spinal Stenosis Pain?
See where laser Spine Surgery Began-No Hospitalization!
WNW, bonati. com

Kill Your Wrinkles
Mom Reveals Shocking $5 method for erasing wrinkles ...Doctors hate her
Buya link here

© 2010 The Washington Post Company

30f3 21712011 12: 18 PM
Star Lobbyist Closes Shop Amid F.B.I. Inquiry - O/us/po Iitics/3Opma.html ?pagewan ...

This copy is for your personal. noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to
your colleagues. clients or cuslomers here or use the "Reprints" 1001 that appears nexlto any article. Visit for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.

March 30, 2009

Star Lobbyist Closes Shop Amid F.B.I. Inquiry

WASHINGTON - For most of the last three decades, the lobbyist Paul Magliocchetti might have been
mistaken for an owner of the Alpine, a wood-paneled Italian restaurant across the Potomac River from
Washington where he routinely presided over boisterous tables of lawmakers and their staff members.

"Get me some oysters! Get me some steamed crabs! Get me a rack of lamb!" Mr. Magliocchetti would tell
the cooks, strolling into the kitchen. "Every day a different thing," the chef and owner Ermanno Tonizzo
recalled fondly. "I don't think he has ever seen the menu."

That impresario act - pulling bottles from the private wine locker labeled "Mags" to entertain lawmakers at
the clubby Capital Grille steakhouse, sending gift baskets or wine to lawmakers and their aides, or leasing
each of his lobbyists a Lexus - helped Mr. Magliocchetti, a protege of the powerful Representative John P,
Murtha, build his lobbying firm into one of the 10 biggest in Washington.

Now, however, Mr. Magliocchetti's generosity is coming to an abrupt halt: his firm, the PMA Group, is
closing its doors next week, after reports that federal prosecutors had recently raided his office and his

And many on Capitol Hill, recalling the scandal that mushroomed around the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, are
wondering who else will be ensnared in the investigation as prosecutors pore over the financial records and
computer files of one of K Street's most influential lobbyists, known both for the billions of dollars in
earmarks he obtained for his clients and for his open hand toward those he sought to influence.

Former PMA staff members familiar with the inquiry say prosecutors' initial questions have focused on the
possibility that Mr. Magliocchetti used straw campaign contributors - a Florida sommelier and a golf club
executive, for example, appear to have given large sums in coordination with PMA - as a front to funnel
illegal donations to friendly lawmakers, a felony that could carry a minimum sentence of five years.

More alarming to lawmakers and aides, however, is that prosecutors may turn their attention to the dinners
at the Alpine and Capital Grille or other gifts they might have accepted from Mr. Magliocchetti - potential
violations of longstanding Congressional ethics rules that could lead to more serious bribery charges if
linked to official acts.

"All the combustibles are here for a very salacious set of allegations that could go far beyond his campaign
finance problems," said Stanley Brand, a veteran Washington criminal defense lawyer known for
representing Democrats.

A spokesman for Mr. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who is chairman of the House defense
appropriations subcommittee, said the lawmaker had done nothing wrong and was not involved in the

10f4 2/7/201112:19PM
Star Lobbyist Closes Shop Amid F.B.I. Inquiry - O/us/po Ii tics/3Oprna.html ?pagew an...


Patrick Dorton, a spokesman for the firm and Mr. Magliocchetti, said it had "carefully complied with all
Congressional gift rules and retained a top law firm for advice on compliance issues in this area."

But three former PIvlA lobbyists said it was only two years ago, more than a decade after the House passed
ethics rules restricting lawmakers and staff members, that Mr. Magliocchetti brought in the outside lawyers
to train his staff in compliance; Congress had just imposed new criminal penalties on lobbyists who furnish
unethical gifts or meals to public officials.

The ethics code bars lawmakers or staff members from accepting free meals or gifts worth more than $50
or a total of more than $100 over the course of a year.

And several former PIvlA lobbyists and former Congressional staff members, speaking anonymously for fear
of retaliation from lawmakers close to Mr. Magliocchetti, said that for decades he sought loopholes to
shower food, drink and gifts on the members and staff members of the House defense appropriations

He regularly arranged food deliveries for late-working committee staff members, for example, taking
advantage of an exception written into the fine print of the ethics code, the former PIvlA lobbyists and
Congressional staff members said. And each year he hosted lawmakers and their staff members at a
legendary Christmas party at the Alpine or, more recently, at the Army Navy golf club, that fit into a
gift-rule exception for "widely attended events."

Mr. Magliocchetti helped pioneer the lucrative specialty of helping contractors lobby for military earmarks,
the several billion dollars in pet spending items that members of the panel insert in annual spending bills,
often with little oversight.

Mr. Magliocchetti came to know Mr. Murtha more than 20 years ago, working as a Navy budget analyst for
the subcommittee during the Reagan boom in military budgets. Both grew up in Western Pennsylvania -
Mr. Murtha in Johnstown, and Mr. Magliocchetti in Pittsburgh.

And when the aide left to start his lobbying firm in 1989, he helped Mr. Murtha recruit major military
contractors to attend a new annual trade fair in Johnstown that became the cornerstone of the lawmaker's
effort to steer business to the area.

Mr. Magliocchetti set up shop at the busy intersection between political fund-raising and taxpayer
spending, directing tens of millions of dollars in contributions to lawmakers while steering hundreds of
millions of dollars in earmarked contracts back to his clients.

Since 1998, for example, employees of the firm and its clients have contributed more than $40 million to
lawmakers, including more than $7.8 million to members on the House defense spending panel and $2-4
million to Mr. Murtha, its chairman. The same lawmakers, meanwhile, have helped finance hundreds of pet
projects sought by PIvlA clients, including earmarks for more than $300 million in the military spending
bill passed last year alone. And PIvlA, still owned by Mr. Magliocchetti until its collapse, grew into a K Street
powerhouse with more than $15 million a year in lobbying fees.

2 of 4 2/7/2011 12:19 PM
Star Lobbyist Closes Shop Amid F.B.I. Inquiry -

Questionable contributions linked to PMA employees appear to be one subject of the federal investigation,
which came to light with reports that teams of F.B.I. agents had searched Mr. Magliocchetti's home and the
offices of PMA in Northern Virginia in November. For example, lawmakers have reported more than
$150,000 in tandem contributions over the last four years from the sommelier, John Pugliese, and the golf
club marketing director, Jon Walker, both of whom live near Mr. Magliocchetti's Florida vacation home and
are sometimes listed as PMA employees. Campaign finance reports include another $1.5 million since 2.000
from Mr. Magliocchetti's family. And about $95,000 over the last three years was credited to Julie
Giardina, a 30-year-old lobbyist who joined PMA after a stint as a Defense Department employee working
for Mr. Murtha's staff.

None of the reported donors returned repeated telephone calls.

Accepting such contributions, however, poses relatively little risk for lawmakers unless prosecutors can
prove knowing complicity in the scheme, ethics lawyers say. Enjoying Mr. Magliocchetti's personal
hospitality, on the other hand, could bring an ethics rebuke or more serious accusations of favor-trading.

Friends and veteran military industry lobbyists say Mr. Magliocchetti acquired his taste for the high life as a
Congressional staff member wined and dined by lobbyists in the era before strict ethics rules. In addition to
his habit of ordering tables of food from the Alpine kitchen - a lobbyist would pick up the tab - Mr.
Magliocchetti picked up a taste for gumbo on visits to shipbuilders around New Orleans, and a fondness for
cowboy boots from former Representative Charlie Wilson of Texas (the "good-time Charlie" whose
energetic nightlife was the subject of the recent film "Charlie Wilson's War").

The background of a December 2001 article in Vanity Fair about the social life of a young Congressional
aide captured a snapshot of Mr. Magliocchetti in his element. Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, he and a
PMA colleague, Daniel Cunningham, were hosting a rowdy table of lawmakers at dinner in a private room
in the Capital Grille that included Representatives Mike Doyle, Tim Holden and Robert A. Brady of
Pennsylvania; Representative Bill Pascrell Jr. of New Jersey; Representative Michael E. Capuano of
Massachusetts; Representative John B. Larson of Connecticut; and former Representative John Baldacci of
Maine, now governor. (Mr. Larson reportedly led the group in a sing-a-long of Beatles, Frank Sinatra and
Rolling Stones songs.) All were members of an informal group that followed Mr. Murtha's lead. Asked
recently about the night, representatives of the lawmakers declined to comment..

After reports three years ago that Mr. Murtha was often seen emerging from a car driven by PMA's Mr.
Cunningham, a former military officer close to Mr. Murtha, a firm spokesman said the lobbyist was merely
a friend who might occasionally give the chairman a lift. Days later, Mr. Murtha's campaign reimbursed Mr.
Cunningham $504 for "travel." Mr. Cunningham did not return phone calls.

Mr. Murtha has apparently developed his own affection for Mr. Magliocchetti's favorite restaurant, as well.
Last year, for the first time, Mr. Murtha reported two campaign expenditures for meals at the Alpine, with a
total cost of $848. A spokesman for Mr. Murtha said one ofthe meals appeared to be a "team meeting" with
a group of former military officials Mr. Murtha likes to consult. (The spokesman declined to say whether
Mr. Cunningham was among them.)

Mr. Magliocchetti, meanwhile, had been poised to exit the lobbying business. He and his wife were starting
a new business near their vacation home on Florida's Amelia Island. Incorporated as Firenze Partners, it

3 of 4 2/7/2011 12: 19 PM
Star Lobbyist Closes Shop Amid F.B.I. Inquiry - '.

was intended to be an Italian restaurant.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: March 31, 2009
A picture on Monday with the continuation of an article about Paul Magliocchetti, a Washington lobbyist
whose firm is closing after reports that federal prosecutors raided his office and his home, was published in
error. The photograph showed Paul A. Magliocchetti, a lawyer in Haverhill, Mass., who is not connected to
the lobbying firm and is not being investigated by federal prosecutors.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Privacy Policy I Search I CorrecHons I ,RSS I Firsl Look I Help I Contact Us I Work for Us I Site Map

40f4 2/7/201112:19PM
Page 1


Copyright 2009 Associated Press
All Rights Reserved
The Associated Press State & Local Wire

June 12,2009 Friday 2:28 AM GMT


LENGTH: 597 words

HEADLINE: House ethics panel reviewing campaign money

BYLINE: By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer


Lawmakers who steer money and contracts to favored companies and receive campaign contributions in return
could face a House ethics committee investigation.
The ethics committee's Democratic chairman and its ranking Republican said Thursday that the committee has been
reviewing the practice which came under scrutiny because of a Justice Department criminal investigation of a
now-defunct lobbying firm, PMA.
Lobbyists for the firm and their clients the recipients of lawmakers' pet hometown projects known as "earmarks"
contributed substantial amounts to several lawmakers including three key Democrats on the House Appropriations
Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania has collected $2.37 million from PMA's lobbyists and the companies it has
represented since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political money. Rep. Pete Vis-
closky ofIndiana has collected $1.36 million, and Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia, $997,348.
The committee has not yet turned the review into a full investigation, a move that would involve much more inten-
sive scrutiny with the possibility of disciplinary action. If the committee does take that step, it could be embarrassing to
Democrats and hand Republicans an issue for the 20 I0 congressional campaigns.
Republicans have been trying to force an investigation of the issue in a series of votes that kept picking up Demo-
cratic support mainly from Democrats in their first and second terms.
Democratic leaders, realizing they were losing support from their members, then defensively pushed through a res-
olution telling the ethics committee to declare whether it is investigating the matter.
The statement by ethics chairman Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. and ranking Republican Jo Bonner of Alabama, said that
the committee previously authorized a review of the allegations relating to the contributions. That review had not been
made public.
"The committee is continuing to review these matters," the statement added.
"I'm encouraged that the ethics committee is looking into the PMA scandal," said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., leader of
the Republican efforts that demanded an investigation. "Obviously, with the first appropriations bill scheduled to be on
Page 2
House ethics panel reviewing campaign money The Associated Press State & Local Wire June 12,2009 Friday 2:28

the floor next week, the House of Representatives cannot justify the continued practice of awarding no-bid contracts to
private companies, This announcement ought to be a sign that this practice needs to stop immediately, II
In 1989, a Capitol Hill staffer named Paul Magliocchetti switched jobs, opening the PMA lobbying firm after leav-
ing the defense subcommittee where Murtha was the brand-new chairman.
Murtha has sponsored hundreds of millions of dollars in directed spending to Magliocchetti's contractor clients,
most of whom have offices in Murtha's district.
The total amount of money isn't publicly known because until two years ago, the House refused to identify the
sponsors of earmarks. But the figures for the last two years are illustrative. Since 2007, Murtha has earmarked $76.1
million for Magliocchetti's lobbying clients, a sizable portion of the nearly $200 million Murtha has earmarked in the
defense budgets during that period.
Magliocchetti was preparing to retire when FBI agents raided his Washington-area finn last November and seized
his finn's campaign records.
Last month, another shoe dropped. A federal grand jury subpoenaed the third-ranking Democrat on Murtha's sub-
committee, Visclosky.
He was forced to relinquish control of a key energy-and-water spending bill that he would have controlled as
chairman of the Appropriations energy and water subcommittee.

LOAD-DATE: June 12,2009
Former lobbyist gets 27 months for campaign finance violations dynlcontentlarticle/20]] 10]107I ...

tbe Wlt5l)iugtolt Ilost
Former lobbyist gets 27 months
for campaign finance violations We didn't know
what to expect
By Maria Glod after the spill.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 7,201]; 8:52 PM

A former high-powered Washington lobbyist was
sentenced Friday to 27 months in prison for carrying
out what prosecutors called one of the largest schemes
in U.S. history to violate federal campaign finance

Paull Magliocchetti, 65, founder and owner of the
now-closed PMA Group, admitted he illegally funneled
hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions over several years. The defense industry lobbyist asked
family members, friends and employees to make the contributions, then reimbursed them.

Federal prosecutors in Virginia said Magliocchetti was driven by greed. In court papers, they said the
scheme "strikes at the core of our country's democracy."

"The victim in this crime is the public's confidence in the electoral process," Kevin O. Driscoll, an
attorney with the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section, said during Friday's sentencing
hearing in U.S. District Court in Alexandria.

Magliocchetti, a once-influential Capital Hill figure who now suffers from poor health and clinical
depression, apologized to his former employees, family and friends. He told the court that he believes a
friend's firing and later suicide would not have happened but for their association. And he stressed
charitable work he has done over the years for military families and abused women.

"I've had the time to think about my choices and their consequences, and I am continually challenged by
my obsession to find ways to make things right," Magliocchetti said. "I believe there are ways I can still
try to make up for my actions."

According to court papers, the scheme began in 2003 and continued through 2008. Magliocchetti
admitted a role in directing about $386,000 in illegal contributions to specific candidates or political
action committees. Prosecutors said in court that they think the total amount of illegal contributions
exceeds $1 million, though Magliocchetti's lawyers dispute that totaL

TI1e indictment did not accuse any lawmakers of a crime, and it reinforced the idea that those who
received donations from Magliocchetti and his associates were unaware of any wrongdoing.

Magliocchetti's lawyers had sought home detention for their client, saying he has several health problems
and has been diagnosed with a mild cognitive impairment that affects his memory and attention. He
suffers from anxiety and depression, they said, and has expressed suicidal thoughts.

"If he were sentenced to a period of incarceration, he would come out forever changed and forever

10f2 2/7/201112:21 PM
Former lobbyist gets 27 months for campaign finance violations!wp-dyn/contentlarticle/20 1110 1107I ...

damaged," defense attorney William E. Lawler III said.

His lawyers also pointed out that many violations of federal campaign laws are resolved with civil fines.

US. District Judge T.S. Ellis III also imposed a $75,000 fine.

Magliocchetti "concocted a massive scheme to secretly funnel money to political campaigns - all so that
he could gain wealth and prestige," Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer said in a statement. "As
today's sentence makes clear, he must now pay a price."

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material Vvill be removed from the site.
Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author Vvill be removed, Finally, we Vvill
take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this
site, Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Sponsored Links

#1 Pro Investment Tool
Get stock news, feeds, charts & the best investment ideas! Free limited time offer.

Spinal Stenosis Pain?
See where laser Spine Surgery Began-No Hospitalization!

Kill Your Wrinkles
Mom Reveals Shocking $5 method for erasing wrinkles ... Doctors hate her
Buya link here

© 2011 The Washington Post Company

20f2 2/7/201112:21 PM
Page 1


Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
The New York Times

April 26, 2009 Sunday
Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1

LENGTH: 1245 words

HEADLINE: As Scandal Swirls, a House Power Broker Is Losing His Clout

BYLINE: By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK; Ron Nixon contributed reporting.


So powerful was Representative John P. Murtha at one time that he used to put up billboards in his Western Penn-
sylvania district declaring that "the P is for Power." Few in Congress dared disagree: he doled out or withheld billions in
federal money each year for lawmakers' pet projects, better known as earmarks.
Now, however, a string of federal criminal investigations of contractors or lobbyists close to Mr. Murtha, the top
Democrat on the defense appropriations subcommittee, are threatening to undermine his backroom clout.
In the weeks since the news that prosecutors had raided the offices of the PMA Group -- a lobbying firm founded
by a former Murtha associate that became a gateway to his office and his biggest source of campaign money>- about
two dozen rank-and-file Democrats have risked his wrath by calling for a House ethics investigation of the matter. One
Democrat has even foresworn seeking earmarks for the military contractors in his district because of ethical concerns
about the process.
In a private meeting with the chairman of the House appropriations committee, Mr. Murtha, the unofficial leader
of the "old bulls" who oversee the subcommittees, was forced to accept a series of new restrictions on his authority to
grant earmarks, Democratic aides briefed on the meeting said. In previous weeks he had already acquiesced to another
steep cut in the volume of earmarks he dispenses, down by half this year from a few years ago. He had also submitted to
new disclosure requirements, including public hearings, that cramp his ability to cut last-minute deals.
Now Mr. Murtha also agreed to accept a new rule requiring competitive bidding on earmarked contracts. Fur-
thermore, one of his usual lieutenants -- Representative Peter 1. Visclosky, Democrat ofIndiana and member of the
defense subcommittee who is chairman of the energy and water panel -- unexpectedly switched sides to back the new
restrictions, perhaps because he too is under new scrutiny for his ties to the PMA Group.
"Whatever the hell it is, we will work our way through it," Mr. Murtha groused after the meeting to the Capitol
Hill publication Roll Call.
While past presidents often courted Mr. Murtha with phone calls and private meetings, President Obama has ex-
tended to him no such courtesies. On a visit to the White House, the lawmaker told senior defense officials that it would
be "foolish" and "ridiculous" to cancel all of a $13 billion contract to buy new presidential helicopters, as he later re-
counted to a defense industry newsletter. But Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has insisted on scrapping the deal as a
symbol of waste.
Page 2
As Scandal Swirls, a House Power Broker Is Losing His Clout The New York Times April 26, 2009 Sunday

And in a recent meeting with the secretary, Mr. Murtha pushed a plan to divide a $35 billion contract to build a
new airborne refueling tanker between two rival contractors -- a compromise that pleases both but would cost the gov-
ernment much more. Mr. Gates listened with little response, several people briefed on their conversation said, but he
later dismissed it.
"I've had conversations with Congressman Murtha," Mr. Gates said in a briefing at the Pentagon this month. "I
still believe that it is not the best deal for the taxpayer, to go with a split buy."
Even among donors, mainly defense interests, Mr. Murtha's standing appears to be slumping. His first-quarter
campaign contributions were down by half from the same period after his previous re-election -- to about $225,000, he
reported this month.
"Even if he himself is not accused of anything, the investigations have to weaken Mr. Murtha," said Loren B.
Thompson, chief operating officer for the nonpartisan Lexington Institute and a consultant to several military contrac-
tors. "He is under an ethical cloud and that is going to make it harder for him to maintain power."
Mr. Murtha, who declined to be interviewed, has brushed off such concems. He has said publicly that federal
prosecutors have not contacted him about any investigations. At 76, he retumed to Congress on Wednesday, two weeks
after knee-replacement surgery, with a new symbol of both his power and his vulnerability: a heavy wooden walking
stick topped by a six-inch gold knob, a gift from the Marine commanding officer.
Mr. Murtha has continued his spring tradition of summoning military lobbyists to a big-ticket fund-raising break-
fast just as he begins to oversee the year's military spending bill. And he has vowed to continue steering military con-
tracts to his constituents. "If I am corrupt," he recently told The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "it is because I take care of my
Other Democrats winced at his words. Reports of the PMA investigation coincided with the news that federal
agents had also raided Kuchera Industries, a Johnstown, Pa., company built on Mr. Murtha's patronage whose owners
held a fund-raiser for him on their private game ranch. The Justice Department is also investigating the Concurrent
Technologies Corporation, a nonprofit government contractor based in Johnstown that was founded by Mr. Murtha,
nurtured by his earmarks and represented by PMA lobbyists.
After news of the raid, Representative Steve Israel, a New York Democrat who sits on the appropriations com-
mittee, said publicly that he would no longer seek earmarks for private companies. That mainly means military contracts
because most other earmarks flow to government agencies or nonprofit groups.
"We are operating under a cloud," Mr. Israel said in an interview, "and until those concerns are addressed and
reform measures are fully in place and we know that they are working, I won't even consider entertaining corporate re-
About two dozen House Democrats, meanwhile, have voted with Republicans to call for the House ethics com-
mittee to investigate the link between earmarks and campaign money.
On Wednesday, three Democrats introduced their own bill to bar lawmakers from accepting contributions from
those who receive their earmarks. "You shouldn't be exchanging campaign contributions for earmarks," said Represent-
ative Tom Perriello of Virginia.
This week, Fred Wertheimer, a veteran advocate for stricter ethics rules, and others are expected to formally ask
the ethics committee to investigate Mr. Murtha, a handful of other lawmakers close to him, and the possibility that they
traded earmarks for contributions and other benefits from the PMA Group.
Meanwhile, shortly after the PMA investigation become public, more than 100 lobbyists and contractors lined up
in late February to shake Mr. Murtha's hand in the receiving line at his annual breakfast fund-raiser at the Army-Navy
Country Club in Arlington, Va. Many lobbyists say they consider it obligatory. (Susan O'Neill, Mr. Murtha's chief
fund-raiser, rounded up lobbyists last year with an e-mail message that all but suggested the chairman would take at-
tendance. "I wanted to be sure that you are attending," she wrote, adding, "I am enclosing the invitation in case you did
not receive it," and, "My office will call to confirm receipt if we do not hear back from you.")
About 2S companies received more than $100 million in Mr. Murtha's earmarks in the current military bill while
their executives contributed more than $350,000 to his campaign.
Page 3
As Scandal Swirls, a House Power Broker Is Losing His Clout The New York Times April 26, 2009 Sunday

Only one business appears to have received an earmark without any contribution last year: Pittsburgh Electric
Engines Inc. of Mount Pleasant, Pa. Its founder declined to discuss how he won the support,


GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, with Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, has long

LOAD-DATE: April 26, 2009
Pentagon, FBI Probing Air Force Contracts cle/2008/04/ 17/...

tlJe tutlflhington 110;5t
Pentagon, FBI Probing Air Force
Questions Raised Over Noncompetitive Deal

By Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 18, 2008

Federal authorities have begun investigating a
contracting arrangement between the Air Force and an
intelligence firm called Commonwealth Research
Institute, according to documents and people familiar
with the case.

Agents from the FBI and the Pentagon's Defense
Criminal Investigative Service in recent weeks have delivered subpoenas seeking details about how
Commonwealth, or CRI, a little-known nonprofit organization in Pennsylvania, received work from the
Air Force through a sole-source deal.

The investigators want to know whether Air Force officials followed appropriate procedures in granting
work to CRr. They also want to know whether work was performed primarily by CRr or by more
established corporations serving as subcontractors, according to people familiar with the investigation
who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak about the case.

The investigation appears to be in an early stage and related in part to a five-year contract worth up to
$45 million that was awarded to CRr without competition in 2006, according to people familiar with the
investigation. That contract is for consulting, analysis and management support services for the Air
Force, National Security Agency, CIA and other intelligence agencies, documents show.

Investigators are also seeking information about contracts involving CRr's parent, Concurrent
Technologies, some of them dating to 2005, according to people familiar with the probe.

Both CRr and Concurrent are registered with the Internal Revenue Service as tax-exempt charities.
Concurrent, based in Johnstown, Pa, had almost $250 million in annual revenue in 2006, most of it from
Pentagon contracts. Concurrent was started two decades ago with help from Rep, John P. Murtha
CD-Pa.), who arranged federal funding for the organization. In recent years, Concurrent has received at
least $226 million in congressional earmarks.

An Air Force spokeswoman declined to respond to questions. But the Air Force is cooperating with
investigators, according to one person familiar with its response to the probe.

A spokesman for Concurrent and CRr declined to comment but defended CRr's work on behalf of the

"CRI has a track record of providing significant value to the Air Force and other government agencies as
a prime contractor," said the spokesman, Patrick Dorton. "As pmi of the current contracts with the Air
Force, CRr has performed significant and substantive work in applied research and development for new

1 of3 21712011 12:24 PM
Pentagon, FBI Probing Air Force Contracts 17I. ..

systems and capabilities."

The federal investigation follows a Washington Post article that detailed how the Air Force arranged for
CRl to pay $26,788 to Charles D. Riechers, a senior civilian official who was awaiting White House
confirmation of his nomination as principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisition.

In an interview last year, Riechers and other Air Force officials told The Post that he was hired
temporarily through CRl's contract. But Riechers said he did no work directly for the organization and
instead focused on Air Force projects that had nothing to do with CRl.

The Air Force official said Riechers was retained under an arrangement that is widely used in the
Pentagon because he had special talents to help on research, development and modernization programs.

Last October, after Carl M. Levin (Dvlvlich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked
the Pentagon for details about the arrangement, Riechers was found dead in an apparent suicide. The
Defense Department inspector general's office has acknowledged that it is also examining the
relationship between the Air Force and CRl.

The current investigation by the FBI and the Pentagon was spurred in part by an internal Air Force
review that turned up questions about the relationship between the Air Force and CRI, according to
people familiar with the investigation.

Last month, federal investigators began delivering grand jury subpoenas and arranging interviews. Air
Force officials were among those receiving subpoenas.

One focus of the investigation is the Air Force office responsible for security, counterintelligence and
special program oversight. That office used the CRr contract in fall 2006 to hire help for technical
studies and research support, according to contracting documents. Investigators have sought computers,
e-mail and contracting records from the office.

Investigators are also examining the role that the Interior Department's National Business Center in Fort
Huachuca, Ariz., played in processing the contract. And they are seeking information from current and
former employees of CRl and Concurrent, along with Lockheed Martin and a Northrop Grumman
subsidiary called Essex, which have served as CRr subcontractors, according to people familiar with the

CRr is part of a constellation of Concurrent organizations that provide a wide array of services for the
Pentagon and other federal agencies. Those services include environmental consulting, management of
faith-based initiatives, metalwork research and the training of bomb-sniffing dogs.

CRr describes itself in IRS documents as "a national resource committed to assisting industry and
government achieve world-class competitiveness." Documents show it works mainly in the intelligence
world. A senior Concurrent official said last year that CRr had 20 employees involved in "very
specialized work for the DoD and the intelligence community." A CRI official said last year that eight of
those employees were interns or students.

The organization apparently had no revenue for several years. In 2004, it reported $633,000 in revenue.
The $45 million contract with the Air Force in 2006 was CRl's biggest to date. The contract called on
CRI to support the Air Force, "DoD Service Battle Labs, the National Reconnaissance Office, Central
Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency," among other agencies,
according to contracting documents.

2 of 3 2/7/2011 12:24 PM
Pentagon, FBI Probing Air Force Contracts le/2008/04117/",

One person familiar with the investigation said CRI employees did substantial amounts of the work
requested by the Air Force.

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Sponsored Links

The #1 Pro Investor Hub
Stock news, tools, charts & insider social media tips, Limited time, sign up free.

Dermatologists Hate Her
Local Mom Reveals $5 Trick to Erase Wrinkles, Shocking Results Exposed
WNW, vanityreports, com/wrinkle-free

Top Stock for 2011 - GTSO
Desperate Search For Rare Earth Minerals Solved, Rare Opportunity
WNW, RareEarthExporters. com

Buya link here

© 2008 The Washington Post Company

3 of 3 2/7/201112:24PM
A Contractor, Charity And Magnet for Federal Earmarks ...

A graphic Vvith this article incorrectly identified Rep. John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania as a Republican.
He is a Democrat.

A Contractor, Charity And Magnet for Federal
By Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 2, 2007

Concurrent Technologies began two decades ago doing metalworking
research in Pennsylvania's struggling rust belt. In the years since, the
Johnstown, Pa., company has become a federal contracting chameleon.

It is an intelligence adviser, an environmental consultant and a software
engineering specialist. It has trained mine-detecting dogs and managed
religion-based initiatives. It oversees construction projects, organizes
conferences and studies ways to use hydrogen for fuel in Pennsylvania and
South Carolina. Missile-defense research is part of its portfolio. So is the
development of special armor for combat vehicles in Iraq and "solid waste
technology" in Florida.

And it is a nonprofit charity.

Behind the rise of Concurrent is Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of
the House Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee, who helped
arrange funding to launch the organization in 1988. Murtha has since
arranged millions of dollars more in directed congressional appropriations
called earmarks. Now Concurrent has nearly $250 million in annual revenue
and I,500 employees.

Concurrent is a prime example of how to marry entrepreneurial savvy,
influence on Capitol Hill and arcane procurement rules to create budget
magnets in congressional districts. Unlike many other big contractors, Concurrent pays no income tax on
most of its revenue. Unlike nonprofit, federally funded research-and-development corporations, it is not
chartered by the federal government.

According to Concurrent's chief financial officer, Edward J. Sheehan Jr., the Internal Revenue Service
approved Concurrent as a charity because it "lessens the burden on governance" and helps "the federal
government and American industry to perform more effectively through the use of emerging
technologies. "

Though most of its revenue comes from government contracts, it has thrived with help from the political
imprimatur that comes with the earmarks and their sponsors.

"The message they give to federal agencies is, 'We're the guys you want to play with because we have

J of 5 2/7/2011 12:24 PM
A Contractor, CharityAnd Magnet for Federal Earmarks II ...

big friends,' " said Keith Ashdown, an investigator at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group
in the District that monitors congressional spending. "This is the model everyone is following."

Former Concurrent officials said the nonprofit organization's executives, some of them veterans of
for-profit contractors inside the Beltway, accepted increasing responsibilities to keep Concurrent
expanding. As revenues grew, so did their salaries, which for the top three executives rose from an
average of $262,000 in 1999 to an average of $462,000 last year, according to documents on file with
the IRS.

"Growth is the primary thing," said Howard A. Kulm, a co-founder and former vice president of
Concurrent. "It came directly from the way that Beltway Bandits work."

The Nature of Our Work

Last month, Concurrent came under scrutiny by Congress after The Washington Post reported that a
nonprofit subsidiary, Commonwealth Research Institute, agreed to pay a senior civilian Air Force official
$13,400 a month while awaiting White House approval of his appointment.

The official, Charles D. Riechers, said in an interview that he did not meet company officials before he
took the job and did no work specifically for the company in the two months he was on its payroll.
Instead, he said, he worked for the Air Force's acquisition office as a senior adviser on a variety of
technical matters through a consulting arrangement that service officials said is common in the Pentagon.
Riechers became principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisition in January.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (Dvlvlich.) has asked the Pentagon to
provide details about the arrangement. The Defense Department inspector general's office is looking into
the matter, a spokesman said. Two weeks ago, Riechers died in what officials said was an apparent

Through a spokesman, Murtha declined requests to be interviewed for this article. In statements, Murtha
said he has no financial ties to Concurrent. Murtha said the company's "quality work and research has
resulted in improved equipment for our troops. Their competitive price has saved taxpayers money, and
they continue to deliver on-time results."

"I'm exceptionally proud of CTC's growth but more importantly I'm proud of the outstanding work they
are doing with the Defense Department," Murtha said in a written statement yesterday.

Concurrent executives did not return phone calls or respond to e-mail requests for interviews. In a report
last year, they attributed Concurrent's growth to the "scientists, engineers, teclmical experts and highly
trained support staff' whose research they said saves the government millions of dollars and helps
protect the country's war fighters. In earlier interviews with The Post, Concurrent officials compared
their operation to other nonprofit corporations, some of them much larger, that help the government plan
systems and assess new technology.

"That's the nature of our work," Daniel R. DeVos, chief executive of Concurrent, said in an earlier
interview. "One of the services we perform is as an honest broker."

A review of documents, federal spending data and interviews with former company officials shows the
company has had successes. It has produced pollution-abatement gear for the Army, a mobile command-
and-control system used after Hurricane Katrina, titanium shields for use by combat vehicles in Iraq and
much other research and technology.

2 of 5 21712011 12:24 PM
A Contractor, Charity And Magnet for Federal Earmarks 1/01/.,.

But publicly available audits of Concurrent's work also show that auditors have questioned whether the
government has received good value for the money it has poured into some projects.

One report by the Pentagon's inspector general's office questioned the propriety of spending millions of
dollars to refurbish a building owned by a private company.

The building was used for an Army pollution-prevention research project that was managed by
Concurrent. The report said the Army did not "properly plan, program, or manage" the program. It also
said "the Army inappropriately paid $3 million for leased facility renovations as a direct charge to a
research contract."

The Pentagon's inspector general said the overall program, known as the National Defense Center for
Environmental Excellence, had received $212 million in congressional appropriations from 1990 to
2000. It said the center demonstrated 63 technologies in that time. But because of funding limitations
and technical issues, including a lack of identified need, only a third of the technologies were transferred
to Defense Department facilities. Just one of the technologies was used at more than one site.

Former Concurrent director Bettis Rainsford said the organization's executives "are basically very good
people who are very much dedicated to the growth of the organization" and to hiring talented people
who can help attract new work. But he said the company's research often goes nowhere.

"A lot of the reports never get off the planning table," he said.

Growth Was Paramount

The contours of Concurrent's history are spelled out in a timeline on the company's Web site. It began
operation in 1988 as a part of the University of Pittsburgh Trust and was first called Metalworking
Technology Inc.

Kuhn, a University of Pittsburgh engineering professor at the time, said a university official and Murtha
wanted to help the ailing local economy and the university's Johnstown campus.

"At the time, the Navy was looking to establish a National Center for Excellence in Metalworking
Technology. The University of Pittsburgh Trust was an ideal fit," Murtha said in a written statement. The
company was to operate the center.

Murtha, a Marine combat veteran, went on to become well-known as a defense hawk who helped lead
the Democratic campaign to force the pullout of some U.S. troops from Iraq.

Kuhn was tapped by the university to write the project proposal with help from a couple of graduate
students. Although he was initially reluctant to get involved in what he saw as a "pork barrel thing," he
said, he saw an opportunity to "dramatically expand" the engineering systems he had been studying and
developing through his own company. "What I thought I would do is do it as legitimately as possible," he

The company initially occupied a former high school building. At the beginning, some Navy contracting
officials questioned how the young entity spent its money and whether it was following federal
acquisition regulations, Kuhn said. The university sought out DeVos, who had experience in
Washington's government contracting world, to run the organization.

Company documents show that its revenue nearly doubled every year at first, rising from $1.5 million to

3 of 5 2/7/2011 12:24 PM
A Contractor, Charity And Magnetfor Federal Earmarks I/O1/...

$22 million in 1992, when the company adopted Concurrent Technologies Corp. as its name. It dropped
its affiliation with the university. The vision of the leadership diverged sharply from the original plan.
Kuhn said he was distressed on the one hand and dazzled on the other by the new executives' ability to
bring in contracts.

"I could see that expansion, growth, acquiring new contracts, was paramount," said Kuhn, who rose to
vice president before leaving in 2000. He said he largely enjoyed working at Concurrent but had qualms
about how it was run. "I'm uncomfortable with the whole concept, the concept of handling a nonprofit
that way."

As company officials sought new work, they stayed close to Murtha. He is routinely praised and quoted
in company news releases, something Murtha said is common for him. Concurrent employees have
contributed at least $132,000 to Murtha over the past decade, federal records show.

Concurrent's lobbying firm, PMA Group, is run by a former defense subcommittee aide, Paul
Magliocchetti. Since 1997, Concurrent has paid Magliocchetti and PMA about $3 million for lobbying
and consulting services, according to tax documents filed with the government.

But as part of a long-term strategy, Concurrent executives decided years ago to diversify their
relationships on Capitol Hill, Kuhn and other former executives said. When Democrats lost control of
Congress in 1994, for example, the firm turned to Republican lawmakers overseeing the appropriations
process. Concurrent opened more offices in both Democratic and Republican districts and hired local
residents, leading to new sources of earmarks and contracts, a former executive said.

In the past four years, Congress has directed at least $226 million to Concurrent in earmarks, according
to records compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense

This year, Murtha and four other lawmakers proposed $18 million more in earmarks for the finn. Sanford
D. Bishop Jr. CD-Ga.), Norm Dicks CD-Wash.), David L. Hobson CR-Ohio) and C. W. Bill Young CR-Fla.)
are also members of the House Appropriations Committee. Concurrent maintains offices in all their

Projects include logistics analysis for the Marine Corps in Albany, Ga.; pollution prevention for the Air
Force in Fairborn, Ohio, and special operations tactical systems development in Largo, Fla., according to
records compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.

"They recognized that if they have projects in the districts of people in Washington who can make things
happen," that would be to their benefit, Rainsford said. "The strategy was to go nationwide."

Murtha defended his funding efforts.

"Every funding request, from both Democrats and Republicans, is properly vetted," Murtha said in a
written statement. "In the end, we fund projects on their value to our military."

The company has critics in Congress.

In a July 17 speech on the floor of the House, Rep. Jeff Flake (RvAriz.) unsuccessfully sought to strike a
$1 million earmark proposed for the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure, to be run by
Concurrent. Flake said he could fmd no evidence that the center existed.

"Concurrent Technology has been the recipient of millions upon millions of dollars over the years,"

4 of 5 2/7/2011 12:24 PM
A Contractor, Charity And Magnet for Federal Earmarks cle/2007111/01 I..,

Flake said during his floor statement. "The executives in Concurrent Technology contribute handsomely
to members of Congress. So it receives a lot of earmarks. It seems to be an earmark incubator of some
type, an earmark that begets more earmarks."

Staff researcher Karl Evanzz contributed to this report.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Sponsored Links

Dermatologists Hate Her
Clever Mom Uses $5 Trick to Erase Wrinkles and Look Younger Instantly.

Spinal Stenosis Pain?
See where laser Spine Surgery Began-No Hospitalization!
VvVvW. bonati. com

Top Stock for 2011 - GTSO
Desperate Search For Rare Earth Minerals Solved. Rare Opportunity
Buya link here

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

5 of 5 2/7/2011 12:24 PM
Firms Tied to Murtha Have Troubled Past!content!articIe/2009/06/04/",

.''f' .\-. .•. '1
i) t' [". 1'
,\J~w< "", I.,,~t-\i'iJ. iJ1'
itZ fJ1U.If)jt1l'l·· l,tl,t+' t
r . ,~,..z;;;J ..

Firms Tied to Murtha Have Troubled Past
Companies Under Investigation Have Gotten Millions in Earmarks

By Carol D, Leonnig and Alice Crites
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 5, 2009

CROYLE TOWNSHIP, Pa. -- Inside the LBK Ranch, a private game
preserve on a scenic hilltop here, guests mingle at a stone lodge after hunting
deer and wild boar. Signs posted at intervals along the fence warn: "No
Trespassing: US. Govt. Testing Facility."

Defense firm owner Bill Kuchera and his wife, Lena, the owners of the
161-acre property, live in an upscale log home within the preserve and go to
extensive efforts to keep out strangers. There are no visible signs of
government testing, but behind the 10-foot fence and electronic gate lies the
answer to a politically sensitive question now under federal scrutiny: whether
Kuchera's companies padded their Pentagon billings and diverted taxpayer
money to their own pet projects.
j ,
In January, federal agents raided the ranch, along with the homes of Bill
Kuchera and his younger brother Ron and the offices of two Kuchera
companies. Federal authorities are investigating tips from company insiders
suggesting that taxpayers were billed improperly for Kuchera family
expenses and ranch renovations, according to sources familiar with the
probe, Tens of millions of dollars in Defense Department contracts have
flowed to Kuchera's companies because of the local congressman,
Democratic Rep. John P. Murtha, the chairman of the House Appropriations
defense subcommittee. The Navy recently suspended the company from
future contracts while the investigation proceeds,

Murtha, who was celebrated at the LBK Ranch with a fundraiser held in his
honor, last week sidestepped questions about $50 million in earmarked funds
and contracts he has helped direct to Kuchera Defense Systems and Kuchera
Industries Inc. since 200 1. But newly obtained documents and interviews show that the current federal
investigation is only the latest chapter in the troubled history of the Kuchera brothers' business ventures.

The Kucheras have a complicated family history that involves drug-running and a family feud that left
the brothers in control of the companies, Over time they became affluent and respected defense
contractors in their home town near Johnstown, Pa,

Before Bill Kuchera produced electronics and robotic equipment for the Pentagon, he helped run
thousands of pounds of marijuana and some cocaine from Miami to sell in Racine, Wis., according to
criminal records and accounts of others involved in the drug operation. Bill Kuchera pleaded guilty to a
single and lesser felony distribution charge in 1982 after cooperating witnesses implicated other Kuchera
family members in helping store drugs at the family home. Ron Kuchera and the boys' parents were
never prosecuted.

1 of 4 2/7/2011 12:25 PM
Firms Tied to Murtha Have Troubled Past",

Bill and Ron Kuchera's uncle, Michael Kuchera, the founder of the original Kuchera Industries Inc" told
The Washington Post that his nephews tricked him into selling the business to a shell corporation they
secretly controlled.

Dennis McGlynn, an attorney for the Kuchera brothers, said he thought Michael Kuchera knew he was
selling the business to his nephews, whom McGlynn said he represented in the sale. He said the Kuchera
companies are appealing the Navy's suspension and he has no evidence of improper billing, He declined
to comment on other questions.

"In defense of Bill and Ron, these people have hired-top notch engineers, computer techs and line
people," McGlynn said, "They produce excellent products. I am certain that all of the general
contractors who use KDS will tell you that their work is unparalleled."

Murtha, through a spokesman, declined to comment.

Known as "Billy" and "Ronnie" to friends, the Kucheras grew up in Racine but tried several times to
make a living in their family's native Cambria County, Pa. In the mid-1970s, Bill Kuchera ran a bar near
Johnstown, and his uncle Mike ran an electronics supply store.

After the 1977 Johnstown flood, both family enterprises were wiped out by the town's economic
downturn. The uncle tried to rebuild slowly. Bill and Ron Kuchera moved back to Racine, where Bill
sold fireworks imported from the South.

Childhood friend Peter Whorley suggested to Bill that he could make more if they teamed up to run
marijuana from Miami, according to court and criminal records.

Business was lucrative until Whorley and Bill Kuchera were arrested in 1981, Wisconsin criminal
records show. They were sentenced to several years in federal prison. Kuchera served 11 months,

After his release, Bill Kuchera struggled to run a small corner grocery in Racine. In 1985, he asked his
uncle Mike for a job with Kuchera Industries, or KII, which then built electronic circuit boards.

"He said, 'I want to make a fresh start,' " Michael Kuchera said. "He was family, and I wanted to help. I
made him my full partner: 50- 50." The uncle put Bill in charge of running the plant. Ron joined them.

Also fresh out of prison, Whorley provided names of government contracting officials he learned about
from fellow prisoners. Whorley said he invested $50,000 in KII for a share of the profits and steered the
Kucheras to his contacts at the Census Bureau, where they won federal work.

But Whorley continued selling drugs, earning a 1O-year prison sentence with his next federal conviction.
He later filed a lawsuit claiming that Bill Kuchera cheated him out of his share of the firm's profits, but it
was unsuccessful.

For a long time, business hummed along. But new tensions arose within KII. Michael Kuchera said he
grew upset when customers warned him that Bill had paid them cash "gifts" to retain their business, In
1993, Michael Kuchera said, Bill persuaded his uncle to sell the company to a local buyer Bill had found.
Months later, Michael Kuchera said he discovered that he actually had signed over his company to an
entity controlled by his nephews, He said he consulted a lawyer, who told him there was little he could

By 1994, the Kuchera brothers had moved their operations to Windber, Pa., 11 miles east of Johnstown,

20f4 2/7/20 II 12:25 PM
Firms Tied to Murtha Have Troubled Past!artic 1e/2 009/06/04/...

with hope of winning defense contracts that Murtha said he wanted to bring to the district. They
partnered with Hughes Aircraft as part of a Defense Department mentor-protege program. Kuchera
Defense Systems qualified as a small, disadvantaged business, because it reported that at least 20 percent
of its employees were disabled, meeting the government's standard. Raytheon became Kuchera Defense
Systems' mentor after it acquired Hughes, a partnership that Murtha's office said the lawmaker

"Without Raytheon and without Congressman Murtha, there would be no Kuchera Defense," Bill
Kuchera said in a 2000 interview.

Kuchera also hired a high-powered lobbying firm, Ervin Technical Associates, whose chairman is
longtime Murtha friend and former congressman Joseph M. McDade (R-Pa.). Kuchera employees and
their spouses have donated more than $106,000 to Murtha's political action and campaign committees.

The first mentorship contract -- $5 million in 1994 -- called for KDS and three other companies to
produce missile and communication systems components for Hughes. Work volume grew each year. In
2002, Raytheon gave Kuchera a $41 million, five-year Navy contract to assemble surface search radar
systems to spot ships, pari of a Murtha-supported earmark. In 2006, Murtha announced that Northrop
Grumman, Raytheon, Coherent Systems and the Air Force would give Kuchera five contracts worth $7
million in just the first year. Much of the work was new to the company.

"These contracts involve new programs for Kuchera, which further diversifies their work load across
various programs," Murtha said in a statement.

Last year, Murtha announced that Raytheon's missile division would give the company a $25.7 million
contract to manufacture telemetry units for an air-to-air missile and $1 million for additional engineering
and design work. Today, the company's long-term military contracts could be worth more than $100
million over the next decade. Defense investigators have asked Raytheon for Kuchera invoices,
according to sources. Raytheon spokesman Anne Marie Squeo said in a statement that Raytheon is
complying with all its requirements under federal contracting regulations.

Last year, acting on tips from people with information about company operations, investigators began
scrutinizing Kuchera's billing and whether federal funds had been used improperly, including for
renovations and laptops. The investigators also are looking into invoices submitted by corporations run
by Kuchera family members and friends, one source said.

In the raid of the ranch, federal investigators confiscated nine guns, Bill Kuchera's rifles and shotguns.
While the Defense Department had signed off on the executive controlling tens of millions of dollars in
defense work, his felony conviction made it illegal for him to possess a firearm.

On a recent visit, two scowling employees on an all-terrain vehicle zoomed out to the property perimeter
to monitor reporters who stood outside the ranch fence to get a look inside.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.

3 of 4 21712011 12:25 PM
Murtha's Warchest Includes Cash from Embattled Defense Contractor ... http://www .opensecrets .org/new s/2009/05/mW'thas-w archest-inc] udes ...


Subsqibe J..QJhis bI99~§


Murtha's Warchest Includes Cash from Embattled Search

Defense Contractor Kuchera
By Lindsay Renick Mayeron May29, 20095:31 PM Blogs that OpenSecrets BlDg
·-Select a link

In light of the news that the Navy has blocked business with Pennsylvania defense Want your blog to be
contractor Kuchera Defense Systems, Rep. JOhn..Murthi;l (D·Penn.) asked reporters considered for this list? E-mail
today, "What's that got to do with me?" While the company's most recent troubles
us at Rres§@QJLQrg
may not have anything to do with Murtha, the congressman can't deny a strong
financial connection to the contractor: In addition to the $.11 7 miliionJJe's secu[j~!LlD About this Entry
earmark fundsJor the company in the last two years. the Defense Appropriations
This page contains a single
Subcommittee chairman has also collected more money for his candidate committee
entry by Lindsay Renick Mayer
and leadership PAC from employees at Kuchera than any other current member of
published on May 29, 2009 5:31
Congress since 1992.
Since the 1992 election cycle. employees at Kuchera have given candidates, parties
and leadership PACs $150,200, with 90 percent of that going to Democrats. Six
current members of Congress. all representing Pennsylvania, have collected was the previous entry in this
$121,200 back in time, with Murtha bringing in the largest haul at $89,300. The
second largest recipient is the only Republican among the bunch, Rep. Bill Sh!J$.!Rr,
who collected $12.300 in the 2008 election cycle. Whl\"Ji9.~.'~.:L?.K".'" Positiv!)
Current lawmakers who have received cash from Kuchera employees since 1992 Disc!Qsure is the next entry in
includino to their leadership PACs a nd campaign committees): this blog.
Name Total
Find recent content on the main
John P Murtha (D-Pa) $89,300 index or look in the archives to
find all content.
Bill Shuster(R-Pa) $12,300

Patrick J Murphy (D·Pa) $9,200

Mike Doyle (D-Pa) $7,000

Bob Casey (D-Pa) $2,000

Arlen Specter (D·Pa) $1,400 B10g Items by Month

Download expanded data that shows contributions by cycle: AIIEmployees_111 th..xls
OpenSecrets Blog's
At $97,300, the bulk of the contributions to current federal lawmakers comes from Latest Tweets:
Kuchera's executives, Bill and Ronald Kuchera, and their spouses. Net surprisingly,
then, they have favored Murtha financially, giving him $66.400 since 1991. All of • The Real Presidential
Shuster's Kuchera contributions. in fact, are from the two executives. Candidates, Political
#Football Continues and
Current lawmakers who have received cash from Bill and Ronald Kuchera since 1992 More: http://t.cQ/KP8l1)\p
includina to their leadership PACs and cam paign committees): #election2012 #politics
#superbowl #dc 8{)0,,18 tmuL!!
Nnme Total

John P Murtha (D-Pa) $66.400 • Read what our own
@davelevinthal is telling the
Bill Shuster (R·Pa) $12,300 #Maine Center for Public
Interest Reporting via
Patrick J Murphy (D·Pa) $9,200 @sunjo\i.U.lli.! tl\!p:/Ibl\.ly
/hNC6'yv..1 #politics ?boc" B
Mike Doyle (D·Pa) $6,000 hours agQ
• Read what
Bob Casey (D-Pa) $2,000's
@.sklr)1hlzis saying about
Arlen Specter (D-Pa) $1,400 health care-related political
$$ in Monday's

1 of 1 21712011 12:25 PM
DO] Says Murtha Earmark Money Was Illicitly Distributed: Roll Call

Back to Article

DOJ Says Murtha Earmark Money Was Illicitly Distributed
By Paul Singer
Roll Call Staff
July9.2009.3:34 p.m.

Updated 3:56 p.rn.

A contracting firm that had hired the brother of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa,) as its lobbyist took the proceeds from a Murtha-provided, $8.2 million Air Force
earmark and distributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to other companies represented by the Congressman's brother for items that were not part of the
project. the Justice Department charged Thursday,

The charges make no indication that the Congressman had any involvement or knowledge of the transactions.

Roll Call reported in June that Murtha used a 2005 tsunami relief bill to take away $8.2 million of government funding from a company called AEPTEC
Microsystems that had severed ties with his brother's lobbying firm and moved that money to Coherent Systems lntarnational, which had hired his brother's
firm. Tile lobbying firm, Rockville, Md.-based KSA Consulting, had hired Kit Murtha and Carmen Scialabba, a former Appropriations Committee staffer for

Charging documents filed Thursday by the Justice Department in the U,S, District Court for the Northern District of Florida allege that Richard lanieri, CEO
of Coherent, paid a total of $1 ,8 million to other firms for items that were not part of the "Ground Mobile Gateway" project that Murtha's earmark had
funded. lanieri is charged with one count of presenting false purchase orders to the government.

The Ground Mobile Gateway project was a mobile communications platform that could help airmen in the field better target airstrikes.

According to the Justice Department, Coherent paid $300,000 to Gensym - a Massachusetts-based company that opened an office in Murtha's district
and hired KSA as its lobbyist - for software that Coherent never used, The charges also allege that Coherent paid $275,000 to VidiaFusion, a KSA client
in Florida, for software that was never used.

The Justice Department notes that both companies provided the software for which they were paid, and neither company is charged with wrongdoing.

Earlier this week, lanieri was charged in Pennsylvania with soliciting $200,000 in kickbacks in January 2006 from a defense contractor identified only as

In Thursday's filing, the government alleges that in December 2005, Coherent paid the Pennsylvania defense contractor Kuchera Industries $650,000 for
"prototype cards" that were not part of the Ground Mobile Gateway project.

Kuchera is owned by Bill Kuchera, a friend and longtime supporter of Congressman Murtha. Coherent and Kuchera had co-located some of their operations
in Pennsylvania, and Murtha had praised their close cooperation.

The government also allepes that Coherent paid $200,000 to a company called Schaller Engineering for "target tags" that were never delivered.

Richard Schaller has been charged separately with distributing the proceeds of that payment to himself and his business partners, including Mark O'Hair,
the Air Force official who approved the original payment to Coherent. O'Hair has also been charged. Attorneys for O'Hair and Schaller have denied the
charges, and their supporters argue that the men were attempting to build a revolutionary product for the Defense Department.

A hearing in lanieri's case has been scheduled for July 14 in the federal court in Pensacola, Fla., and he is expected to plead gUilty to the charges.

KSA President Ken Stalder declined to comment for this article.

Murtha spokesman Matt Mazonkey called the charges disturbing and said that "if true, then the individuals and companies in question should be held
accountable under the law."

More News
• HOI"!'s One-Minute Recess: A Night on the Town 31 minutes ago

• Social Media Goes Viral on Capitol Hill

• Kerry Calls on Mubarak \0 Explain Transition to l:[Jyptians

• Spendin[J Proposals Elicit Gag From Unrestrained Simpson

• Republicans Begin Turning to National Security Issues

• Tea Party Freshmen Will Star at Annual Meeting

• Democrats Hope to Find Health Care Fooling

10f2 21712011 12:26 PM
Justice Department Investigates Mountaintop Technologies Over Murth ... c Ie/2009/05/24/ ...

tl)t' Wt1l1d}htgfun 110»'1
Justice Dept.: Investigates Pa.
8 investing mistakes you
Contractor Tied to Murtha should avoid in 2011
By Carol D. Leonnig
If you have a $500,000 portfolio, download
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 25, 2009 the guide by Forbes columnist and money
manager Ken fisher. It's called "The Eight
In tiny, cash-strapped Monongahela, Pa., the city clerk Biggest Mistakes Investors Make and
was stunned when federal investigators arrived this fall How to Avoid Them," Even if you have
with a subpoena seeking information on a crime- something else in place right now, it stiff
fighting grant she'd never heard of. She takes pride in makes sense to request your guide!
tracking every dollar in the municipal budget.

The $15,000 federal grant was to buy police radios and
other equipment to protect the city's 4,700 residents,
but it had traveled an unusual route, never crossing the clerk's desk.

Over the past five years, a local defense contractor with close ties to Rep. John P. Murtha, a Democrat
who has represented southwestern Pennsylvania for three decades, has selected several small police
departments in the region to receive $10 million in Justice Department grants.

The company, Mountaintop Technologies, was selected by the lawmaker in a series of earmarks to hand
out and monitor the grants. As it distributed the money to the departments, the firm would explain each
time that it was arriving through the largess of Murtha -- often just before fall elections.

Once she learned from the investigators that Monongahela's police department was getting money
outside of normal channels, City Clerk Carole Foglia was disturbed.

"I wasn't happy with the situation at all," Foglia said. "I didn't want to be involved in anything that was
done improperly, because that's not the way I work in my office. And this was improper. No question
about it."

The tale of how a defense company ended up getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to distribute
federal police grants is a chapter in a larger story of Mountaintop Technologies, its far-flung operations
and its dependence on Murtha. The Johnstown firm has received at least $36 million in the past eight
years in earmarks and military contracts, without competition and with the backing of Murtha, the
powerful chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. It also hired the lobbying firm
where Murtha's brother worked.

Mountaintop Technologies founder David H. Fyock said there was nothing improper in the police grants
or in any of the company's contracts. The Justice Department's inspector general declined to comment on
its probe of the company's role in the police grants, which surfaced last year. Federal law enforcement
sources who spoke anonymously said the earmarked grants drew attention because the company was a
registered defense firm with little experience in law enforcement. Murtha's office did not respond to a
request for comment.

Fyock said in an interview that taxpayers get great value from Murtha's earmarks. He and many other

1 of 4 2/7/201 I 12:27 PM
Justice Department Investigates Mountaintop Technologies Over Murth ... c le/2009/05/24/ ...

local residents argue that Murtha's push for hundreds of millions of dollars for the region created a new
economic base after the big steel companies shut down in the 1970s. Earmarked contracts have also
given his company a chance to prove its worth to federal agencies that could bring other business, he

"We are pretty darn good at managing contracts," he said. "We get the work because Congressman
Murtha and his staff are well aware of our capabilities."

In many cases, the company was paid to hire experts to do the highly specialized work.

Taxpayer advocates complain that the company has often appeared to bc an unnecessary middleman,
and they question how it can be the best choice to oversee work in such diverse fields as defense, law
enforcement and medicine.

"You have to think there is a considerable extra cost to taxpayers for a company that just goes out and
acquires talent for each contract," said Steve Ellis, a vice president at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a
watchdog group critical of earmarks.

Coal Country Neighbors

Fyock became close with Murtha while the two worked together to bring industry to Johnstown, when
Fyock was a lobbyist and economic development director for the local electric company in the 1980s.

Fyock opened Mountaintop in 1993 as a two-person firm designing and selling software for online course
work. He put the corporate headquarters in the same Main Street office building where Murtha's
congressional office is located, just one floor below. The congressman's brother, Kit Murtha, and three
former Murtha aides have worked as registered lobbyists for Mountaintop, and the company has paid
$725,000 for lobbyists since 1999. In the same period, Fyock and a handful of Mountaintop executives
have donated $40,200 to Murtha campaigns, which represented less than 2 percent of the congressman's
fundraising at the time.

Murtha has touted the company to the Defense Department and his constituents as a finn with expertise
that could oversee projects including robotics, battlefield anesthesiology and emergency
communications. It won government work to manage the John P. Murtha airport in 2007 and is now
pressing for federal contracts to study autism therapies.

Fyock said his company doesn't pretend to be expert in all these areas, but hires and oversees the work
of specialists.

"We were the ones who found the experts and took their knowledge and made it available," he said.
"Somebody has to put together all the work that's necessary."

In 2002, when the company had grown to 25 employees, it won its first big federal contracts and
subcontracts, on three projects worth $13 million. At a local defense industry conference he helped host
in Johnstown, Murtha announced that he had added the contracts to the Defense Department budget.

Under one of the contracts, the company is helping conduct research on a broadband system with the
goal of bringing rural residents cheaper Internet access. Another put the company in charge of setting up
an emergency operations center so police and emergency workers could communicate on the same radio
frequencies, to avoid the communication problems Murtha said he witnessed in Washington during the
Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Cambria County emergency officials say they use the skills and

2 of 4 2/7/2011 12:27 PM
Justice Department Investigates Mountaintop Technologies Over Murth ...!arti c Iel2 009/05/24/...

equipment gained from the project: Their five-person emergency command center now has 40 computers
available in case of a major crisis.

The most lucrative contracts, in 2002 and 2004, paid Mountaintop $11 million to manage an evaluation
of potential military uses for the Bombardier CL-415, an amphibious plane that could dump water on
fires. The company recommended that the military buy the plane, but that has not happened.

"Just because none of the planes were ever purchased doesn't diminish the quality of the work we did,"
Fyock said.

Fyock told Jack Schultz, a rural economic development blogger, in 2007 that he was proud of how much
the company was weaning itself from earmarks: "While earmarks helped us to get these programs
started, today over 50 percent of our business is built upon continuous contracts that we win on our own

Over the past eight years, according to the White House budget office, the company has faced open
competition in only 11 percent of its federal contracts, which make up most of its business.

"We are working very hard to increase the proportion of our business that is competitive," Fyock said.
"We certainly aren't there yet. We expect to be able to improve that over the next couple of years."

Looking Into Earmarks

The Justice Department investigation stems from an effort by Murtha's office to use earmarks to steer
money to local police in 2002 and its choice of Mountaintop to oversee the funds. Justice spokeswoman
Tracy Schmaler said the department, under a new presidential order, will block this kind of earmark in
the future. The order bars earmarks that lawmakers do not publicly detail.

Fyock said Mountaintop provided oversight to ensure the towns properly applied for the grants and spent
the money on permitted items. He said the company is charging only for the cost of its staff and is
making no profit on administering the grants. Justice Department records show that in the most recent
grant, the company charged $121,000 in costs to award $1. 8 million.

When fraud investigators arrived in Monongahela, Foglia said they told her they were scrutinizing
Mountaintop, not the city. The subpoena requested all city correspondence with the company and also
all business transactions and bank records regarding the grant.

Fyock said that he had heard about investigators requesting information but that he has not been
questioned and would not necessarily know if his employees had. City officials, he said, should have
notified his company if they found a problem. "We've been approved recently by the Justice Department
to administer more grants," he said. "You would think if they had a problem with us, that would not have

In a March news release, Murtha touted $1.4 million in grants he had obtained for towns in seven
counties, all to be administered by Mountaintop.

"Many of our smaller police departments can't afford to purchase the necessary equipment and training
they need, which is why I'm proud to secure this funding and to support their efforts," Murtha said.

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

3 of4 2/7/2011 12:27 PM
U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, D.C. 20535

March 1, 2011


FOIPA Request No.: 1161324- 000

Dear Mr. Rappaport:

This responds to your Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request.

The material you requested is located in investigative files which are exempt from disclosure
pursuant to 5 U.S,C, § 552(b)(7)(A). 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) exempts from disclosure:

records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only
to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or
information ... could reasonably be expected to interfere with
enforcement proceedings ...

In applying this exemption, I have determined that the records responsive to your request are law
enforcement records; that there is a pending or prospective law enforcement proceeding relevant to these
responsive records; and that release of the information contained in these responsive records could
reasonably be expected to interfere with the enforcement proceedings. For a further explanation of this
exemption, see enclosed Explanation of Exemptions Form.

You may file an appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), U.S.
Department of Justice, 1425 New York Ave., NW, Suite 11050, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001. Your
appeal must be received by OIP within sixty (60) days from the date of this letter in order to be considered
timely. The envelope and the letter should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Appeal." Please cite
the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so that it may be identified easily.

Enclosed for your information is a copy of the FBI File Fact Sheet.

Very truly yours,

David M. Hardy
Section Chief,
Record/I nformation
Dissemination Section
Records Management Division



(b)( I) (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or
foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified to such Executive order;

(b)(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;

(b)(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute(A) requires that the
matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for
withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

(b)(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

(b)(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation
with the agency;

(b)(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(b)(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement
records or information ( A ) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, ( B ) would deprive a person
of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, ( C ) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy, ( D ) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or
authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of record or information compiled
by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security
intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, ( E ) would disclose techniques and procedures for law
enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such
disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or ( F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or
physical safety of any individual;

(b)(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for
the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or

(b)(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.


(d)(5) information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action proceeding;

m(2) material reporting investigative efforts pertaining to the enforcement of criminal law including efforts to prevent, control, or reduce
crime or apprehend criminals;

(k)(I) information which is currently and properly classified pursuant to an Executive order in the interest of the national defense or foreign
policy, for example, information involving intelligence sources or methods;

(k)(2) investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than criminal, which did not result in loss of a right, benefit or
privilege under Federal programs, or which would identify a source who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her
identity would be held in confidence;

(k)(3) material maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or any other individual
pursuant to the authority of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3056;

(k)(4) required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records;

(k)(5) investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian
employment or for access to classified information, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished
information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence;

(k)(6) testing or examination material used to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in Federal Government
service the release of which would compromise the testing or examination process;

(k)(7) material used to determine potential for promotion in the armed services, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the
person who furnished the material pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence.
The mission of the FBI is to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and
foreign intelligence threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States,
and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and
international agencies and partners.

The FBI does not keep a file on every citizen of the United States.

The FBI was not established until 1908 and we have very few records prior to the

FBI files generally contain reports of FBI investigations of a wide range of matters,
including counterterrorism, foreign counter-intelligence, organized crime/drugs, violent
crime, white-collar crime, applicants, and civil rights.

The FBI does not issue clearances or nonclearances for anyone other than its own
personnel or persons having access to FBI facilities. Background investigations for
security clearances are conducted by many different Government agencies. Persons
who received a clearance while in the military or employed with some other government
agency should write directly to that entity.

An FBI identification record or "rap sheet" is NOT the same as an FBI "file" - it is
simply a listing of information taken from fingerprint cards submitted to the FBI in
connection with arrests, federal employment, naturalization, or military service. The
SUbject of a "rap sheet" may obtain a copy by submitting a written request to FBI, CJIS
Division, Attn: SCU, Mod. D-2, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia
26306. Each request must have proof of identity which shall consist of name, date and
place of birth and a set of rolled-ink fingerprint impressions placed upon fingerprint
cards or forms commonly utilized for applicant or law enforcement purposes by law
enforcement agencies, plus payment of $18.00 in the form of a certified check or
money order, payable to the Treasury of the United States.

The National Name Check Program (NNCP) conducts a search of the FBI's Universal
Index to identify any information contained in FBI records that may be associated with
an individual and provides the results of that search to the requesting Federal, State or
local agency. For the NNCP, a name is searched in a multitude of combinations and
phonetic spellings to ensure all records are located. The NNCP also searches for both
"main" and "cross reference" files. A main file is an entry that carries the name
corresponding to the subject of a file while a cross reference is merely a mention of an
individual contained in a file. The results from a search of this magnitude can result in
several "hits" and "idents" on an individual. In each instance where UNI has identified a
name variation or reference, information must be reviewed to determine whether it is
applicable to the individual in question.

The Record/lnformation Dissemination Section/Freedom of Information-Privacy
Acts (FOIPA) search for records provides copies of FBI files relevant to a FOIPA
request for information. FOIPA provides responsive documents to requesters seeking
"reasonably described information." For a FOIPA search, the SUbject name, event,
activity, business, or event is searched to determine whether there is an investigative file
associated with the subject. This is called a "main file search" and differs from The
National Name Check Program (NNCP) search.