foia appeal: crew: fbi: regarding mollohan investigation: 04/06/11

8/7/2019 FOIA Appeal: CREW: FBI: Regarding Mollohan Investigation: 04/06/11

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/foia-appeal-crew-fbi-regarding-mollohan-investigation-040611 1/30

CREW IMelanie Ann PustayDirectorOffice o f Information PolicyU.S. Department of Justice1425 New York Avenue , N.W.Suite 11050Washington , D.C. 20530-0001

citizens for responsibilityand ethics in washington

April 6, 2011

Re : Freedom ofInformation Act Appeal in Request No. 1163752-000

Dear Ms. Pustay:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ( "CREW ") hereby appeals therefusal o f the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation ( "FBI") to process and release to CREW anyrecords responsive to our Freedom ofInformation Act ( "FOIA") request of February 14, 2011.

By letter dated and sent by facsimile on February 14,2011, CREW requested all recordsrelated to the investigation o f former Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV) conducted by theDepartment o f Justice ( "DOJ") and the FBI, including but not limited to DOl's decision not tobring criminal charges against Rep. Mollohan. CREW explicitly excluded from its requestrecords covered by grand jury secrecy pursuant to Rule 6(e) o f the Federal Rules of CriminalProcedure. A copy o f the request is attached as Exhibit A.

CREW also sought a public interest fee waiver, explaining that the requested records arelikely to contribute to greater public awareness of alleged malfeasance and possible criminalbehavior by Rep. Mollohan , as well as the decision o f DOJ not to prosecute Rep. Mollohandespite his known conduct. As CREW explained, DOJ conducted an investigation of Rep .Mollohan related to $250 million in earmarks that benefitted non-profit organizations of Rep.Mollohan 's campaign contributors. CREW further explained that DOJ notified Rep. Mollohanin January 2010 it had concluded its investigation of him and declined to prosecute him , and theUnited States Attorney 's Office for the District o f Columbia confirmed it had closed itsinvestigation.

As CREW also explained, while DOJ decided not to prosecute Rep. Mollohan, hisactivities still may have been illegal or violations of the rules of the House, and the requestedrecords would shed light on them. CREW further explained these documents would shed light

1400 Eye Street, NW., Suite 450, Washington, D.C . 20005 I 202 .408.5565 phone I 202.588.5020fa x I www.citizensforethics.o



Office of Information PolicyApril 6, 2011

on the conduct ofDOJ and the FBI in conducting the investigation of Rep. Mollohan, and DOJ's

apparent decision to close the investigation without bringing charges against him.

CREW specifically noted its willingness to discuss with the FBI the scope of its requestand 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 31, 2011 (attached as ExhibitB), acknowledging receipt of CREW's request and asserting records pertaining to a third party"generally cannot be released" without the express written authorization and consent of the thirdparty (presumably Rep. Mollohan), proof that the subject of the request is deceased, or "a cleardemonstration that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the personal privacy interest andthat significant public benefit would result from disclosure." The FBI added that because

CREW did not provide consent, proof of death, or a public justification for release, disclosure"would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" and would violate the Privacy Act.The FBI also claimed the records are "generally exempt from disclosure" pursuant to Exemptions6 and 7(C) of the FOIA. Finally, the FBI offered to release any public records maintained in itsfiles upon further request by CREW.

By refusing at the outset to process any aspect of CREW's request that seeks anythingbeyond public record material - described as court records, news clippings, and the like - the FBIhas failed to meet its most basic obligations under the FOIA. The FBI's reflexive reliance on thePrivacy Act and Exemptions 6 and 7(C) fails to take into account the significant public interest inRep. Mollohan's conduct, the conduct ofDOJ and the FBI in investigating Rep. Mollohan, andDOJ's apparent decision to close its investigation without bringing charges against him, as wellas Rep. Mollohan's diminished privacy interest in the requested records.

First, disclosure of records does not violate the Privacy Ac t where disclosure is requiredunder the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(2). Under the FOIA, an agency must produce all responsiverecords except to the extent they, or any portion of them, fall into one of nine specifiedexemptions. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). The only exemptions referenced by EOUSA are Exemptions 6and 7(C). As explained below, EOUSA improperly relied on these exemptions to withhold therequested records.

Exemption 6 exempts from compelled disclosure "personnel and medical files and similarfiles the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personalprivacy," 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), and Exemption 7(C) exempts from disclosure records "compiledfor law enforcement purposes" where disclosure "could reasonably be expected to constitute anunwarranted invasion of personal privacy," 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C). Under these standards, todetermine if a privacy exemption properly applies, a court must balance the privacy interestagainst the public interest in citizens being "informed about 'what their government is up to."Us . Dep 't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 762, 772-73



Office of Information PolicyApril 6, 2011

(1989) ("Reporters Committee") (internal citation omitted). Information that "sheds light on an

agency's performance of its statutory duties falls squarely within" the public interest. Id. at 773;see also Us. Dep 't o f Defense v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487, 497 (1994). Personal information may bewithheld only when it "reveals little or nothing" about the government's conduct. ReportersCommittee, 489 U.S at 773.

The records CREW requests unquestionably would inform the public about what a formermember ofthe House Appropriations Committee, and the chairman of the subcommittee withjurisdiction over DOJ and the FBI, was up to. As CREW explained in the request, the requestedrecords are likely to contribute to greater public awareness of alleged malfeasance and possiblecriminal behavior by Rep. Mollohan. DOJ and the FBI conducted an extensive investigation intoRep. Mollohan's activities, and while DOJ eventually decided not to prosecute him, his activities

still may have been illegal or improper. The public clearly has a strong interest in beinginformed about these activities.

In addition, these documents would shed light on the conduct of DOJ and the FBI inconducting the investigation of Rep. Mollohan, and DOl's decision to close the investigationwithout bringing charges against him. Considering the importance of this investigation, thepublic has a powerful interest in fully understanding the FBI's and DOl's conduct.

These public interests clearly outweigh any privacy interests. The FBI does not specifywhat privacy interests are at issue, but there is no need to protect Rep. Mollohan from beingassociated with the criminal investigation because - as CREW explained in our request - theirexistence has been reported widely. Indeed, both the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District ofColumbia and Rep. Mollohan have publicly acknowledged the investigation. See Paul Kane,Justice Dept. ends probe of Rep. Mollohan, The Washington Post, January 26,2010 (attached asExhibit C). Rep. Mollohan has no privacy interest in information he made public. See, e.g.,Nation Magazine v. Us. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885,896 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

Furthermore, high-ranking government officials such as Rep. Mollohan have adiminished privacy interest in the balancing conducted under Exemptions 6 and 7(C). See, e.g.,Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 92-94 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

Even i f the requested records contain some information for which some privacy interestoutweighs the public interest in disclosure, the FBI also did not comply with its duty under theFOIA to disclose all non-exempt, segregable portions of the records. The FOIA requiresagencies to "disclose any reasonably segregable portion of a record . . . after deletions of theportions which are exempt." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). "[T]he focus in the FOIA is information, notdocuments, and an agency cannot justify withholding an entire document simply by showing thatit contains some exempt material." Mead Data Central, Inc. v. United States Dep 't of Air Force,566 F.2d 242, 260 (D.C. Cir. 1977); see also Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 185



Office of Information PolicyApril 6 , 2011

F.3d 898, 907 (D.C. Cir. 1999) . The FBI should have redacted any legitimately exempt

information and disclosed the remainder o f the records.

The FBI's initial determination withholding the requested records pursuant to the PrivacyAct and Exemptions 6 and 7(C) of the FOIA plainly is in error and must be reversed. The FBImust be ordered to process CREW's request and withhold only information pursuant toExemptions 6 and 7(C) for which the privacy interests outweigh the compelling interest indisclosure.

Respectfully submitted,

~. ' ' !

. ,,/

I v

Adam J. RappapoSenior Counsel

Enclosures



EXHIBIT A



CREW Icitizens for responsibilityand ethics in washington

February 14,2011

By facsimile: 540-868-4995

Federal Bureau of InvestigationAttn: FOI/PA RequestRecord/Information Dissemination Section170 Marcel DriveWinchester, VA 22602-4843

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Sir/Madam:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") makes this request forrecords, regardless of format, medium, or physical characteristics, and including electronicrecords and information, audiotapes, videotapes an d photographs, pursuant to the Freedom ofInformation Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 552, et seq., an d U.S. Department ofJustice ("DOT')regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 16.

Specifically, CREW requests all records related to investigations conducted by DOJ andthe Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") of Rep. Alan.' B. Mollohan (D- WV ) that are notcovered by grand jury secrecy pursuant to Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,including but not l imited to DOl 's decision not to bring criminal charges against him. DOJ

conducted an investigation of Rep. Mollohan related to $250 million in earmarks that benefittednon-profit organizations of Rep. Mollohan's campaign contributors. See Paul Kane, JusticeDept. ends pro be of Rep. Mollohan, The Washington Post, January 26, 2010 (attached as ExhibitA). DOJ notified Rep. Mollohan in January 2010 it had concluded its investigation of him anddeclined to prosecute him, an d the United States Attorney's Office for the Distr ict of Columbiaconfirmed it had closed its investigation. Id.

Please search for responsive records regardless of format, medium, or physicalcharacteristics. Where possible, please produce records electronically, in PD F or TIF format on aCD-ROM. We seek records of any kind, including electronic records, audiotapes, videotapes, andphotographs. Our request includes any letters, ernails, facsimiles, telephone messages, voice mailmessages, and transcripts, notes, or minutes of any meetings, telephone conversations, or

discussions. Ou r 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 t ha t y ou p ro vi de it with an index of those documents as required under Vaughn v.

Rosen, 48 4 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1972). As yo u are aware, aVaughn index must describe each document claimed as exempt with sufficient specificity "to permita reasoned judgment as to whether the material is actually exempt under FOIA" Founding Church

1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 450, Washington, D.C. 20005 I 2 0 2 . 4 0 8 . ~ ) 5 6 5phone I 202.588.5020 fax I www.citizensforethics.o



Rena Y. KimFebruary 14, 2011Page 2

o f Scientology 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 theconsequences of supplying the sought-after information." King v. Us. Dep 't o f Justice, 830 F.2d210,223-24 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasis added) . Further, "the withholding agency must supply 'arelatively detailed justification, specifically identifying the reasons wh y a particular exemption isrelevant and correlating those claims with the particular part of a withheld document to which theyapply. ", ld. at 224 (citing Mead Data Central v. Us. Dep 't of the Ai r 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 5U.S.C. § 552(b). Ifit is your posit ion that a document contains non-exempt segments, but that thosenon-exempt segments are so dispersed throughout the document as to make segregation impossible,please state what portion of the document is non-exempt, and ho w the material is dispersedthroughout the document. Mead Data Central, 566 F.2d at 261. C laim s of nonsegregability mustbe made wi th the same degree of detail as required for claims of exemptions in a Vaughn index. If arequest is denied in whole, please state specifically that it is no t reasonable to segregate portions ofthe record for release.

Finally, CREW welcomes the opportunity to discuss with you whether and to what extentthis request can be narrowed or modif ied to bet ter enable the FBI to process it wi th in the ForA'sdeadlines. Adam J. Rappaport, the CREW attorney handling this matter, can be reached at (202)408-5565 or arappaport0{citizensforethics.org,

Fee Waiver Request

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii i) and 28 C,F.R. § 16.11(k), CREW requests awaiver of fees associated with processing this request for records. The subject of this requestconcerns the operations of the federal government and expenditures, and the disclosures will likelycontribute to a better understanding of relevant government procedures by CREW and the generalpublic in asignificant way. Moreover, the request is primari ly and fundamentally for noncommercial 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).

These records are l ikely to contr ibute to greater public awareness of alleged malfeasance andpossible criminal behavior by Rep. Mollohan and why, despi te this apparent malfeasance, DOJrefused to prosecute Rep. Mollohan.

From 2006 to 2010, the Justice Department investigated possible connections between Rep.Mollohan and five non-profit organizations that he created and supported with earmarks. See Kane,Wash. Post, Jan. 26 , 20 10 . Rep. Mollohan earmarked $250 mill ion for five non-profits: West




Virginia High Technology Consortium Foundation, Institute for Scientific Research, Canaan ValleyInstitute, Vandalia Heritage Foundation, and MountainMade Foundation. See Judi Rudoren, SpecialProjects by Congressman Draw Complaints, The New York Times, April 8,2006 (attached asExhibit B). Employees of the organizations, including board members and contractors, contributedat least $397,122 to Rep. Mollohan's campaigns from 1997 to 2006. ld. The non-profits were runby close friends and real estate partners of Rep. Mollohan. See Kane, Wash. Post, Jan. 26, 2010.DOJ notified Rep. Mollohan in January 2010 it had concluded its investigation of him and declinedto prosecute him. ld.

The requested documents would shed light on the conduct of DOJ and the FBI in conductingthe investigation of Rep. Mollohan, and DOl's decision to close the investigation without bringingcharges against him. In addition, while DOJ decided not to prosecute Rep. Mollohan, his activitiesstill may have been illegal or violations of the rules of the House, and the requested records wouldshed light on them.

CREW is a non-profit corporation, organized under section 501(c)(3) of the InternalRevenue Code. CREW is committed to protecting the public's right to be 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 garneredthrough this request is no t in CREW's financial interest. CREW will analyze the informationresponsive 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 thisrequest to the public through its website, wwvl.citizensforethics.org, which also includes links to

thousands of pages of documents CREW acquired through its multiple FOIA requests as well asdocuments related to CREW's litigation and agency complaints, and through www.scribd.com.

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

News Media Fee Waiver Request

CREW also asks that it not be charged search or review fees for this request because CREWqualifies as a "representative of the news media" pursuant to the FOIA. In Nat 'I Sec. Archive v.

Us. Dep 't o f Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1989), the Court of Appeals for the Districtof Columbia Circuit found the National Security Archive was a representative of the news media

under the FOIA, relying on theFOIA's

legislative history, which indicates the phrase"representative of the news media" is to be interpreted broadly; "i t is critical that the phrase'representative of the news media' be broadly interpreted if the act is to work as expected .... Infact, any person or organization which regularly publishes or disseminates information to thepublic . . . should qualify fo r waivers as a 'representative o f the news media. ", 132 Congo Rec.S14298 (dailyed. Sept. 30, 1986) (emphasis added), cited in id.



Sincerely,


CREW routinely and systematically disseminates information to the public in several ways.First, CREW maintains a frequently visited website, ww\v.citizens1'orethics.org, that received53,145 page views in January 2011. In addit ion, CREW posts all of the documents it receives underthe FOIA on wvrw.scribd.com, and that site has received 607,799 visits to CREW's documentssince Apri114, 2010.

Second, since May 2007 CREW has published an online newsletter, CREWCuts, thatcurrently has 16,960 subscribers. CREWCuts provides subscribers with regular updates regardingCREW's activities and information the organization has received from government entities. Acomplete archive of past CREWCuts is available at http://\vww.citizensforethics.org/newsletter.

Third, CREW publishes a blog, Citizens bloggingfor responsibility an d ethics in

Washington, that reports on and analyzes newsworthy developments regarding government ethicsand corruption. The blog, located at http://vvww.citiznesforethics.org/bloQ, also provides links thatdirect readers to other news articles and commentary on these issues. CREW's blog had 4,045 pageviews in January 2011.

Finally, CREW has published numerous reports to educate the public about governmentethics and corruption. See Record Chaos, which examines agency compliance with electronicrecord keeping responsibilities; The Revolving Door, a comprehensive look into the postgovernment activities 01'24 former members of President Bush's cabinet; and Those Who Dared: 30Officials Who Stood Up For Our Country. These and all other CREW's reports are available athttp://',N\vw.citizensforethics.org/repOlis.

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.

Conclusion

If you have any questions about this request or foresee any problems in releasing fully therequested records please contact me at (202) 408-5565. Also, if CREW's request for a fee waiver isnot granted in full, please contact our office immediately upon making such a determination. Pleasesend the requested records to Adam J. Rappaport, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics inWashington, 1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 450, Washington, D.C. 20005.

/ / 7 " ' A

/ . / // ~ : . : : : . . . _ " ) _ . - < , ;/.. - /

Adam J. Rappaport'<Senior Counsel

Enclosures



EXHIBIT A



Justice Dept. ends probe of Rep. Mollohan

arl)ctutailtlingtcuJ10fftJustice Dept. ends probe of Rep.Mollohan

By Paul KaneWashington Post Staff WriterTuesday, January 26, 2010; 3:25 PM

The Justice Department has shuttered its nearlyfour-year investigation into the personal finances ofRep. Alan Mollohan (D- W.Va.), freeing the 14-termlawmaker to pursue what could be a tough bid forreelection without the lingering cloud of a federalcriminal probe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/201 %

1 o f3

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbiahad been overseeing an investigation of Mollohan, a senior member of the House AppropriationsCommittee, for steering roughly $250 million in line-item expenditures to several nonprofit organizationsrun by close friends, who also were real estate partners with him.

Mollohan's office was notified this month that the investigation had been closed without criminal chargesfiled. Federal prosecutors declined to elaborate on what the investigation had found.

"We're not going to get into any details, but I can confirm we've closed the investigation into AlanMollohan," Ben Friedman, spokesman for the u.s. attorney's office, said Monday evening.

Mollohan, 66, is expected to notify House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. David R. Obey

(D-Wis.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, of the development in a letter Tuesday. Thatwould clear the way for him to resume full control of a subcommittee that oversees the roughly $28billion budget for the Justice Department and the nearly $8 billion budget for the FBI.

In a statement, Mollohan said the investigation was sparked by a conservative watchdog group's pal1isanactions. The probe was launched when he was serving as the top Democrat on the House ethicscommittee.

"For nearly four years, in the face of a politically-motivated assault on my character, I have continued tofight for jobs and the working families of West Virginia. With this behind me, I am more determined thanever to stand up for the people of the First Congressional District and fight for what matters," Mollohansaid.

He recently filed to run for reelection, squelching whispers that he might join several other longtimeincumbents who decided to retire rather than face a tough political envii .. onment in November.

In recent weeks, the independent political handicappers Cook Political Report and the RothenbergPolitical Report have downgraded Mollohan's seat to "lean Democratic" status. The Republican Partydid not field a challenger to Mollohan in 2008, but national party leaders have recruited several potentialcandidates while seeking to maintain a drumbeat of criticism related to the criminal investigation. Theypivoted away from the ethics matter Tuesday and sought to focus on the state 's economy.

2114/2011 3



Justice Dept. ends probe of Rep. Mollohan http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dynlcontentlartic le120 1%

2 0 f 3

"Alan Mollohan's support for Obama's war on Mountaineer State jobs proves that it doesn't matterwhether he's in Congress or behind bars -- he stopped representing West Virginians a long time ago," saidAndy Sere, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

A federal grand jury issued a flurry of subpoenas to West Virginia-based nonprofits in 2006 and 2007,after a SOO-page criminal complaint regarding Mollohan's finances in February 2006.

The complaint came from the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative group that discovereddiscrepancies in Mollohan's personal financial disclosure forms. It raised questions about how hispersonal wealth rose -- according to congressional disclosure reports he filed -- from a minimum of$180,000 in 2000 to a minimum of $6.3 million in 2004.

Mollohan attributed much of that increase to a family inheritance and to the soaring property values of acondominium building he owns in the District's West End. After a self-imposed audit, Mollohan filedamended reports that corrected roughly 20 mistakes in his disclosure forms. He contended they wereminimal in nature.

However, federal investigators continued to focus on multimillion-dollar earmarks that Mollohan steeredto entities such as Vandalia Heritage Foundation, a historic-preservation group that was run by LauraKuhns, a former Mollohan staff member.

The lawmaker's family also invested with Kuhns's family in North Carolina beach property, including alot in Bald Head that went to foreclosure late last year.

Pete Flaherty, who co-founded the NLPC, questioned whether the Justice Department backed offtheinvestigation because Mollohan is a loyal vote for the Obama administration. "Has Attorney GeneralEric Holder no w made it legal for members of Congress to earmark money to their business partners?This is a horrible precedent," Flaherty said.

The Mollohan investigation came at the height of Democratic attacks on what Pelosi, then the minorityleader, called the Republican "culture of corruption." Mollohan served as ranking Democrat on theethics panel when it admonished House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in 2004 over fundraisingactivities. Mollohan also fought rules changes that GOP leaders imposed in 2005, leading to a virtualshutdown of the committee's work for several months.

Shortly after the investigation became public, Mollohan stepped down from the ethics committee. WhenDemocrats claimed the majority in January 2007, Mollohan took over as chairman of the Appropriationsjustice subcommittee, but recused himself from voting on matters specifically related to the FBI and theattorney general's office.

In his statement Tuesday, Mollohan defended helping to fund the nonprofit groups: "These nonprofits

are all about building West Virginia's economy and making our state a better place to live. I am veryhappy that they will be able to put this behind them and refocus on their core missions to create goodjobs and improve the lives o f West Virginians."

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Post a Comment


2!l4/20113:16PM




You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login IRegister

Submit

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dynlcontent/article/201 %

3 0 f 3

Comments that include profanity or personalattacks or other inappropriate comments or material \!viII be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain"signatures" by someone other than the actual author \!viII be removed. Finally, we \!viII take steps to block users who violate any of ourposting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the illllLV!§.§governingcommentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Sponsored Links

Dermatologists Hate HerClever Mom Uses $5 Trick to Erase Wrinkles and Look Younger Instantly.www.vanityreports.com/wrinkle-free

Groupon" Official Site1 r id iculously huge coupon a day. Like doing your city at 90% off!www.Groupon.com

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

Buya link here

© 2010 The Washington Post Company

2/14/2011 3



EXHIBIT B



SPECIAL PROJECTS BY CONGRESSMAN DRAW COMPLAINTS .., http://querY,l1ytimes,com/gst/fullpage,html?res=9BO IE6D61130F93B ..

This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only, You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution toyour colleagues, clients or customers, please click here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article,Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information, Order a reprint of this article now, »

I of 8

April 8, 2006

SPECIAL PROJECTS BY CONGRESSMAN DRAWCOMPLAINTS

By JODI RUDOREN; David Johnston and Aron Pilhofercontributed reporting for this article,

AB lawmakers have increasingly slipped pet projects into federal spending bills overthe pastdecade, one lawmaker has used his powerful perch on th e House Appropriations Committee tofunnel $ 2 5 0 million into five nonprofit organizations that he se t up.

Those actions have prompted a complaint to federal prosecutors that questions whether any ofthat taxpayer money helped fuel a parallel growth in his personal fortune.

The most ambitious effort by th e congressman, Alan B. Mollohan, is a glistening glassand-steel structure with a swimming pool, sauna an d spa rising in a former cow pasture inFairmont, W.Va., thanks to $103 million oftaxpayer money he garnered through specialspending allocations known as earmarks.

The headquarters building is likely to sit largely empty upon completion this summer, becauseth e Mollohan-created organization that it was built for, the Institute for Scientific Research, is

in disarray, its chief executive having resigned under a cloud of criticism over his $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0annual compensation, also paid by earmarked federal money.

The five organizations have diverse missions but form a cozy, cross-pollinated network in theforlorn former coal capitals of north-central West Virginia. Mr. Mollohan has recruited many oftheir top employees an d board members, including longtime friends or former aides, who inturn provide him with steady campaign contributions and positive publicity in theirnewsletters.

The conservative National Legal and Policy Center in Falls Church, Va., filed a soo-pagecomplaint with th e United States attorney for the District of Columbia on Feb. 28 challengingth e accuracy of Mr. Mollohan's financial disclosure forms. The forms show a sharp spike inassets and income from rental properties from 2 0 0 0 to 2 0 0 4 .

Federal authorities said yesterday that they were reviewing th e complaint, which was reportedin The Wall Street Journal.

The case has led several Republican leaders to call for Mr. Mollohan's removal from th e Houseethics committee, where he is th e senior Democrat.

2 /14/20 II 3:



SPECIAL PROJECTS BY CONGRESSMAN DRA W COMPLAINTS ... ht1p://query.nytimes,com/gstifullpage,htrnl?res=9BOI E6D611 30F93

2 of 8

In a statement yesterday, he said, "These groups were not created to benefit me in any way,and they never have."

Mr. Mollohan noted that the National Legal and Policy Center had attacked other Democratsand their union supporters and that it began its inquiry last May after he had voted against

Republican efforts to water down House ethics rules.

"Obviously, I am in the crosshairs ofthe National Republican Party and like-minded entities,"said Mr. Mollohan, who faces a serious electoral challenge in November. Vice President DickCheney is scheduled to headline a fund-raiser on April 21 for th e Republican whom the WhiteHouse recruited to run against Mr. Mollohan,

"They are angry at me, an d I fully expect that from now until November they will continue tomake baseless charges against me, my record and my family," the statement said. "I willvigorously defend my service and not be intimidated by their heavy-handed tactics."

In previous interviews, Mr. Mollohan acknowledged that he ha d failed to pay 2004 taxes onincome from rental properties in Washington and North Carolina, resulting in a state lien of$8,948,28 being filed on Dec. 1. He said the case was resolved by final payments of all taxes,interest and penalties by January.

"Obviously it's totally my fault," he said, "I just neglected this, an d it was paid late, and I regretthat."

In the last three years, Mr. Mollohan, a Democrat first elected in 1982 to a seat long held by hisfather, has bought $2 million worth of property on Bald Head Island, N.C., with Laura Kurtz

Kuhns, a former employee who now runs one of the organizations and is on the boards oftwoothers.

He was unapologetic about his earmarks, saying that local lawmakers knew their constituents'needs best, an d that he was hardly alone in mainlining money back home. "The amount ofmoney in the transportation bill spent in Illinois in earmarked projects is astronomical," hesaid. "I t puts $100 million on the I.S,R, building in real perspective,"

The earmarking occurred as an abundance oflocal projects was added to spending bills outsidethe normal budget review, from $32.9 billion in 2000 to $64 billion in 2006, th eCongressional Research Service said. Although it is impossible to trace individual earmarks forcertain, an analysis by Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington watchdog, found$480 million added in th e House or in conference committees, most likely by Mr. Mollohan, forhis district since 1995. That sum helped West Virginia rank fourth on th e watchdog list -$131,58 for each ofthe 1.8 million West Virginians this year.

Although Mr. Mollohan's mentor, Senator Robert C. Byrd, has long blanketed the state inbacon in th e form oflarge public works projects and federal complexes, Mr. Mollohan hasdirected more than half his earmarks to his five organizations of his design.

2!14/20113:1



SPECIAL PROJECTS BY CONGRESSMAN DRAW COMPLAINTS ... hltp://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.htmJ?res=9BO 1 E6D61130F9

3 of 8

Several people involved in the appropriations process said no other lawmaker employed thatstrategy to the same extent.

The first an d largest is th e West Virginia High Technology Consortium Foundation, which isabsorbing the troubled Institute for Scientific Research. Another, the Canaan Valley Institute,

works on stream restoration and wastewater treatment. The Vandalia Heritage Foundationredevelops dilapidated buildings, and the MountainMade Foundation helps artisans marketwares.

"He's basically judge, jury an d executioner for all this money," said Keith Ashdown, vicepresident of th e Taxpayers for Common Sense in Washington.

Of the empty building in Mr. Mollohan's hometown, Fairmont, Mr. Ashdown added, "This issort of Mollohan's field of dreams, bu t in his case, he's building it, and it doesn't look likethey're going to come."

Kenneth F. Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, said th e bulle of hiscomplaint to the federal prosecutors was made up of public documents that showed 260

instances of omitted or undervalued assets on the financial disclosure forms that Mr. Mollohanfiled with th e ethics committee from 1996 to 2004.

Those forms show a jump in Mr. Mollohan's portfolio from less than $500,000 in assetsgenerating less than $80,000 in income in 2000 to at least $6.3 million in assets earning$200,000 to $1.2 million in 2004, along with large mortgage debts.

Among the concerns in the complaint, Mr. Boehm said, are commissions that Ms. Kuhns's

husband, Donald, received as a real estate broker on deals for th e organization that shecontrols. The couple have donated at least $10,000 to Mr. Mollohan's political committeessince 1998.

The complaint also looks at whether Mr. Mollohan properly reported 27 condominiums in theRemington, near Foggy Bottom in Washington. He and his wife own th e building with acousin, Joseph 1. Jarvis, whose business once received money from a federal contract in Mr.Mollohan's district.

"The $64,000 question that's all over this thing is during th e period of time all these earmarkswent to very closely associated non profits run by people who were very close to him, did any ofthe money go from Point A to Point B?" Mr. Boehm asked in an interview. "Did any of hisnewfound wealth result from, in an y way, shape or form, individuals who ha d benefited fromhis official actions?"

Lifeblood for a Weak Economy

About 75 miles southeast of Fairmont along windy roads in Thomas (pop. 473) sits the Buxton& Landstreet Building, whose lifeblood is Mr. Mollohan's largess. The Vandalia Heritage

2/l4/20113:1



SPECIAL PROJECTS BY CONGRESSMAN DRA W COMPLAINTS ... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9BO IE6D61130F93 B

4 of 8

Foundation used $1.2 million in earmarks from the Department of Housing an d UrbanDevelopment to help transform th e yellow-brick behemoth, built in 1901 as the coal companystore, from broken down to bustling.

The first floor is a vibrant gallery where th e MountainMade Foundation, relying on its own

earmarks from th e Small Business Administration to pay Vandalia its $5,166.67 in monthlyrent, sells items like Mr. Byrd's thick autobiography for $35 an d a maple desk for $5,250.

Upstairs, 41 people work on stream restoration and wastewater treatment in the Canaan Valleyoffice, whose $5,100 rent to Vandalia is covered by earmarks from th e EnvironmentalProtection Agency an d th e National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration.

"What else are you going to do to reinvent this economy?" asked Ms. Kuhns, Mr. Mollohan'sformer aide who runs Vandalia and is th e co-owner of th e North Carolina beach property withth e congressman. "A lot of what we do would not get done otherwise."

Created in 2000 to help artisans market their creations over th e Internet -- Mr. Mollohanfavors the earthenware pottery -- MountainMade also runs glassblowing, spinning an d

felt-malting workshops in another downtown building that Vandalia renovated.

The Canaan Valley Institute, which grew out of an effort to create a wildlife refuge nearproperty that Mr. Mollohan owns, is building a $33 million headquarters with classrooms andlaboratories on 3,208 acres that it bought with earmarks he secured.

Vandalia owns more than a score of properties throughout Mr. Mollohan's district like the

Baltimore & Ohio station in Grafton that it is tu rning into a museum and officespace and lots

in Fairmont, where it plans to build houses. Earmarks from HUD bought th e mothballedWaldo Hotel in Clarksburg ($230,000 in 2000) and 1,129 acres in Canaan Valley ($2-4 millionin 2004).

Mr. Mollohan and th e organizations' managers said their goal was to wean from earmarks andbe self-sustaining. But Canaan Valley, the oldest, continues to rely on earmarks for 97 percentof its money. Last year, MountainMade received $1,085,308 from th e S.B.A., nearly twice its$553,000 in sales. MountainMade also ha d a $124,000 state grant.

As for Vandalia, 92 percent of its $31.5 million in grants since 1999 arrived through federalearmarks. Separately, the 2004 tax return for th e organization shows that 96 percent of its$8.5 million revenue was from government grants.

None of the three groups have dues-paying members, like many such organizations, or runregular fund-raisers. They worry about the crackdown on earmarks. Th e Vandalia pipeline hasbegun to dry up since Mr. Mollohan left th e subcommittee that appropriates HUD money. Theorganizations said success in finding other sources had been sporadic.

The Quid Pro Quos

2/14/20113



SPECIAL PROJECTS BY CONGRESSMAN DRA W COMPLAINTS '" http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.htm1?res=9BO1E6D61 130F9 3

50 f 8

"The congressman gave us money" for this or that is how th e groups' leaders frequently explaintheir programs. And they generally return th e favor at fund-raisers.

A review of campaign finance records by The New York Times shows that from 1997 throughFebruary 2006, top-paid employees, board members and contractors of the five organizations

gave at least $397,122 to Mr. Mollohan's campaign and political action committees.

Thirty-eight individuals with leadership roles, including all five chief executives -- all but oneof whose 2004 salaries outpaced the $98,456 national average among nonprofit leaders -contributed, often giving th e maximum allowed.

At the same time, workers at companies that do business with th e federally financed groupswere among Mr. Mollohan's leading contributors. Employees ofTMC Technologies, 'which hada $50,000 contract with Vandalia in 20°3, have given $63,450 since 1998. Workers atElectronic Warfare Associates and Man Tech International, military contractors that rent spacefrom the technology consortium and whose chief executives are on the board of the Institute forScientific Research, combined to give $86,750.

For Kate McComas, a weaver who is th e executive director of MountainMade, th e $1,000 checkthat she wrote in March 2004 at a Mollohan fund-raiser was a first. "I bought a pair of highheels to wear," Ms. McComas recalled. "I thank him every occasion I see him for theopportunity we have here."

Asked whether contributions were required or expected, Kevin Niewoehner, th e departed chiefexecutive of th e Institute for Scientific Research, said: " 'Required' is such a strong term. Thepolitical environment an d th e access that goes along with it ha s a number of expectations that

involves what is appropriate and what isn't appropriate." He added that the first hint that hewas falling out offavor occurred in October, when a $250 check he wrote to th e campaign wasreturned uncashed.

"I received invitations to those events on a regular basis," he said. "I was invited to participate,and I participated."

'Teaming to Win'

Mr. Mollohan scoffed at th e suggestion that th e overlap among th e groups that he supports

and his supporters meant anything more than a meeting of th e minds."I like to think I 'm supported because I work hard," he said. "Because I bring a collaborative, a'teaming to win, , if you will, approach to solving th e really difficult challenges facing WestVirginia."

The team includes overlapping rosters among th e five organizations. In addition to Ms.Kuhns's multiple roles, Jack Carpenter, an old friend of th e congressman, is vice president ofthe consortium and chairman of th e MountainMade board. The board once included Mr.

2114/20] 13



SPECIAL PROJECTS BY CONGRESSMAN DRAW COMPLAINTS ...

Mollohan's wife, Barbara.

http://query.nytimes.com/gstJfullpage.html?res=9BO 1E6D61130F93

60f8

Raymond A. Oliverio, executive vice president of the consortium, is also treasurer ofthe RobertH. Mollohan Foundation, named for the congressman's late father. Gina Fantasia, Vandalia'slegal counsel, moved over last year from th e Institute for Scientific Research. Her brother Nick,

mayor of Fairmont, is chairman of the Vandalia Redevelopment Corporation, a heritagefoundation sister.

"He effectively referred to it as a family," said a person involved in th e Mollohan network,likening th e operation to keiretsu, th e Japanese concept of intermeshed corporate boards.

Down the hill from th e steel structure here is th e more pedestrian $14 million Alan B.Mollohan Innovation Center, built with $3.5 million in earmarks. It is th e home of the

high-tech consortium, which began in 1990 as six small companies hoping to seed a neweconomic area. The center ha s 200 affiliates throughout the state. Earmarks are its engine,underwriting high-tech projects like AmberView, which seeks to create a national database ofthree-dimensional school photographs to help find missing children.

The consortium has ha d better luck following earmarks with competitive grants. ItsInformation Research Corporation was spun off as a for-profit subsidiary after obtaining a $10million Navy contract to build 2,500 BomBots, robotlike tractors that remotely deliverexplosives.

"The congressman has enabled programs and entities to get started," said Tom Witt, director ofthe West Virginia University Bureau of Business an d Economic Research. "But at some point,they're going to have to make th e transition or they'll die."

The big test will be the $134 million Institute for Scientific Research building, three-quarterspaid by NASA and HUD earmarks. The 57-member staff is barely large enough to fill a cornerofthe ooo-plus capacity of th e building.

Photos: Alan B. Mollohan, left, senior Democrat on the House ethics committee, withCommerce Secretary Carlos Guitierrez at an appropriation hearing yesterday. (Photo byStephen Crowley/The New York Times); (Photographs by Vandalia Foundation [Canaan ValleyInstitute, MountainMade Foundation] and Jeff Swensen for The New York Times)(pg. AlO)

Chart: "Local Projects, Federal Funds"Alan B. Mollohan's Congressional district in West Virginia ha s received $480 million in specialspending allocations known as earmarks since 1995. About halfthe money has gone to the fiveorganizations at right, all of which Mr. Mollohan set up.

Earmarks for Mr. Mollohan's Congressional District

Graph tracks earmarks for th e following groups since 1995.

2/l 4/20113:



SPECIAL PROJECTS BY CONGRESSMAN DRA W COMPLAINTS '" http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9BOIE6D6I I 30F

7 0 f 8

West Virginia High Technology Consortium FoundationFOUNDED: 1990EMPLOYEES: 148TOP SALARY: $260,000

ACTIVITIES: Runs its own research projects an d works with companies to seed hightechprojects. Planning a technology parkEARMARKS SINCE 1995: $3 9 million from HUD, S.B.A. a nd t he Justice Department

Institute for Scientific ResearchFOUNDED: 1990EMPLOYEES: 57TOP SALARY: $362,286

ACTIVITIES:Conducts basic information technology an d engineering research for federalagencies.EARMARKS SINCE 1995: $108 million from NASA an d HUD

Canaan Valley Institute

FOUNDED: 1995EMPLOYEES: 49TOP SALARY: $147,450ACTIVITIES: Partners with local groups on environmental problems, particularly streamrestoration an d wastewater treatment.EARMARKS SINCE 1995: $71 million (awarded funds) from E.P.A. and NOAA

Vandalia Heritage Foundation

FOUNDED: 1998EMPLOYEES: 12TOP SALARY: $102,000

ACTIVITIES: Restores historic buildings, acquires property for development an d runs "legacy"projects of oral histories.EARMARKS SINCE 1995: $2 8 million from HUD

MountainMade Foundation

FOUNDED: 2000EMPLOYEES: 19TOP SALARY: $65,565ACTIVITIES: Helps local artisans sell wares. Runs craft workshops.EARMARKS SINCE 1995: $8 million from S.B.A.

(Sources by Citizens Against Government Waste; tax returns of th e five nonprofits)(pg. AlO)

21I4/20I13:17PM



SPECIAL PROJECTS BY CONGRESSMAN DRA W COMPLAINTS .., http://query,nytimes,com/gst/fullpage,html?res=9BO 1E6D61130F93B,

8 0 f 8

Map of West Virginia highlighting First Congressional District: Fairmont, W.Va., is thehometown of Representative Alan B.Mollohan. epg. AlO)

QgPYriflOL2QJJ ]JSlNe.'NYQrkTIrDe1iCQrDP.?DY H9.r.:n.e PriYi'!cYPQ)iCY $eSlLchCorrec!iOD11 X M ~ Help Coot::lct\)11 S?ckJQT9P

2/14/2011 3:



EXHIBIT B



U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington, D.C. 20535

March 31, 2011

MR ADAM J RAPPAPORTSUITE 4501400 EYE STREET N.W.WASHINGTON, DC 20005

FOIPA Request No.: 1163752- 000Subject: MOLLOHAN, ALAN B.

Dear Mr. Rappaport:

This acknowledges receipt of your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the FBI. TheFOIA number listed above has been assigned to your request.

You have requested records concerning a third party. Records pertaining to a third party generallycannot be released absent express authorization and consent of the third party, proof that the subject ofyour request is deceased, or a clear demonstration that the public interest in disclosure outweighs thepersonal privacy interest and that significant public benefit would result from the disclosure of the requestedrecords. Proof of death can be a copy of a death certificate, Social Security Death Index, obituary oranother recognized reference source. Death is presumed if the birth date of the subject is more than 100years ago. Since you have not furnished a Certification of Identity form, proof of death, or publicjustification for release, the release of records concerning a third party would result in an unwarrantedinvasion of personal privacy and would be in violation of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. These recordsare also generally exempt from disclosure pursuant to sections (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) of the Freedom ofInformation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552.

Enclosed is a Certification of Identity form. You may make additional copies of this form if you arerequesting information on more than one individual. The subject of your request should complete this formand then sign it or prepare a document containing the required descriptive data and have it notarized. Theoriginal certification of identity, notarized authorization with the descriptive information and a legible, originalsignature must be provided to the FBI before an accurate search of our records can be conducted.

If requested, we will conduct a search for any public records maintained in our files, such as courtrecords and news clippings, without the express authorization of the third party, proof of death, or publicjustification for release provided the subject is of sufficient public notoriety. If public records exist in our filesand you desire to obtain them, please reply with a letter asking for the public documents. You may fax yourresponse to the following number: (540) 868-4997, Attention: Work Process Unit. Ifwe do not receive aresponse from you within 30 days from the date of this letter, your request will be closed. You must includethe FOIA request number with any communication regarding this matter.

This response should not be considered an indication of whether or not records responsive to yourrequest exist in FBI files.

It is unnecessary to adjudicate your fee waiver request because there are no assessable fees.

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. Yourappeal 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." Pleasecite the FOIPA Number assigned to your request to facilitate its identification.

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

Very truly yours,

David M. HardySection Chief,RecordllnformationDissemination Section

Records Management Division



FBI FILE FACT SHEET

The primary function of the FBI is law enforcement.The FBI does not keep a file on every citizen of the United States

The FBI wa s no t established until 1908 and we have very few records prior to the1920's.

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

The FBI does no t issue clearances or nonclearances fo r anyone other than it sown personnel or persons having access to FBI facilities. Background investigations forsecurity clearances are conducted by many different Government agencies. Persons whoreceived a clearance while in the military or employed with some other government agencyshould contact that entity. Most government agencies have websites which are accessible onthe internet which have their contact information.

An identification record or "rap sheet" is NOT the same as an FBI "file" - it is alisting of information taken from fingerprint cards and related documents submitted to the FBI inconnection 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, Criminal JusticeInformation 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 writtenrequest to FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, Record Request, 1000Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306. Along with a specific written request, theindividual must submit a new full set of his/her fingerprints in order to locate the record, establishpositive identification, and ensure that an individual's records is not disseminated to anunauthorized person. The fingerprint submission must include the subject's name, date of birthand place of birth. There is a required fee of $18 for this service which must be submitted in theform of a money order or certified bank check made payable to the Treasury of the UnitedStates. A credit card payment option is also available. Forms for this option and additionaldirections may be obtained by accessing the FBI Web site atwww.fbLgov/hq/cjisd/fprequest.htm. States.

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

The Record/Information Dissemination Section/Freedom of Information-PrivacyAc t (FOIPA) search for records provides copies of FBI files relevant to a FOIPA request forinformation. FOIPA provides responsive documents to requestors seeking "reasonablydescribed information." For a FOIPA search, the subject name, event,activity, business, orevent 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 NNCP search.

FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE FBI, VISIT OUR WEBSITE ATwww.fbi.gov

3-20-2009



u.s. DepartmentofJustice Certification of Identity ~~Privacy Act Statement. In accordance with 28 CFR Section 16.41(d) personal data sufficient to identify the individuals submitting requestsby mail under the Privacy Act of 1974,5 U.S.C. Section 552a, is required. The purpose of this solicitation is to ensure that the records ofindividuals who are the subject of U.S. Department of Justice systems of records are not wrongfully disclosed by the Department. Failure to

furnish this information will result in no action being taken on the request. False information on this form may subject the requester to criminal penalties under 18 U.S.c. Section 1001 and/or 5 U.S.c. Section 55130)(3).

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.50 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collectionof information. Suggestions for reducing this burden may be submittedto Director, Facilities and Administrative Services Staff, JusticeManagement Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530 and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Officeof Management and Budget, Public Use Reports Project (1103-0016), Washington, DC 20503.

Full Name of Requester I

Citizenship Status 2 Social Security Number3 _

Current Address _

Date of Birth Placeof Birth _

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I am theperson named above, and I understand that any falsification of this statement is punishable under the provisions of 18U.S.c. Section 1001by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment of not more than five years or both, and that requesting or obtaining any record(s)under false pretenses is punishable under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552aO)(3) by a fine of not more than $5,000.

Signature 4 Date _

OPTIONAL: Authorization to Release Information to Another Person

This form is also to be completed by a requester who is authorizing information relating to himself or herself to be released to another person.

Further,pursuant to 5 U.S.c. Section 552a(b), I authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to release any and all information relating to me to:

Print or Type Name

1 Name of individual who is the subject of the record sought.

2 Individual submitting a request under the Privacy Act of 1974 must be either "a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfullyadmitted for permanent residence," pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(a)(2). Requests will be processed as Freedom of Information Actrequests pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552, rather than Privacy Act requests, for individuals who are not United States citizens or alienslawfully admitted for permanent residence.

3 Providing your social security number is voluntary. You are asked to provide your social security number only to facilitate theidentification of records relating to you. Without your social security number, the Department may be unable to locate any or all recordspertaining to you.

4 Signature of individual who is the subject of the record sought.

roRM APPROVED OMBNO, 1103-0016EXPIRES 4131/07

FORM 001·361

SEPT04



EXHIBIT C




Qr1jetuuf1binghm110mJustice Dept. ends probe of Rep.MollohanBy Paul KaneWashington Post Staff WriterTuesday, January 26, 2010; 3:25 PM

The Justice Department has shuttered its nearlyfour-year investigation into the personal finances ofRep. Alan Mollohan CD-W.Va.), freeing the 14-termlawmaker to pursue what could be a tough bid forreelection without the lingering cloud of a federalcriminal probe.

http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dyn/content/article/201 %

1o f3

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbiahad been overseeing an investigation of Mollohan, a senior member of the House AppropriationsCommittee, for steering roughly $250 million in line-item expenditures to several nonprofit organizationsrun by close friends, who also were real estate partners with him.

Mollohan's office was notified this month that the investigation had been closed without criminal chargesfiled. Federal prosecutors declined to elaborate on what the investigation had found.

"We're not going to get into any details, but I can confirm we've closed the investigation into AlanMollohan," Ben Friedman, spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office, said Monday evening.

Mollohan, 66, is expected to notify House Speaker Nancy Pelosi CD-Calif.) and Rep. David R. Obey

CD-Wis.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, of the development in a letter Tuesday. Thatwould clear the way for him to resume full control of a subcommittee that oversees the roughly $28billion budget for the Justice Department and the nearly $8 billion budget for the FBI.

In a statement, Mollohan said the investigation was sparked by a conservative watchdog group's patiisanactions. The probe was launched when he was serving as the top Democrat on the House ethicscommittee.

"For nearly four years, in the face of a politically-motivated assault on my character, I have continued tofight for jobs and the working families of West Virginia. With this behind me, I am more determined thanever to stand up for the people of the First Congressional District and fight for what matters," Mollohansaid.

He recently filed to run for reelection, squelching whispers that he might join several other longtimeincumbents who decided to retire rather than face a tough political environment in November.

In recent weeks, the independent political handicappers Cook Political Report and the RothenbergPolitical Report have downgraded Mollohan's seat to "lean Democratic" status. The Republican Partydid not field a challenger to Mollohan in 2008, but national party leaders have recruited several potentialcandidates while seeking to maintain a drumbeat of criticism related to the criminal investigation. Theypivoted away from the ethics matter Tuesday and sought to focus on the state 's economy.

2/14/2011 3



Justice Dept. ends probe of Rep. Mollohan http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dyn/content/article/201 010

2 0 f 3

"Alan Mollohan's support for Obama's war on Mountaineer State jobs proves that it doesn't matterwhether he's in Congress or behind bars -- he stopped representing West Virginians a long time ago," saidAndy Sere, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

A federal grand jury issued a flurry of subpoenas to West Virginia-based nonprofits in 2006 and 2007,after a 500-page criminal complaint regarding Mollohan's finances in February 2006.

The complaint came from the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative group that discovereddiscrepancies in Mollohan's personal financial disclosure forms. I t raised questions about how hispersonal wealth rose -- according to congressional disclosure reports he filed -- from a minimum of$180,000 in 2000 to a minimum of$6.3 million in 2004.

Mollohan attributed much of that increase to a family inheritance and to the soaring property values of acondominium building he owns in the District's West End. After a self-imposed audit, Mollohan filedamended reports that corrected roughly 20 mistakes in his disclosure forms. He contended they wereminimal in nature.

However, federal investigators continued to focus on multimillion-dollar earmarks that Mollohan steeredto entities such as Vandalia Heritage Foundation, a historic-preservation group that was run by LauraKuhns, a former Mollohan staff member.

The lawmaker's family also invested with Kuhns's family in North Carolina beach property, including alot in Bald Head that went to foreclosure late last year.

Pete Flaherty, who co-founded the NLPC, questioned whether the Justice Department backed off theinvestigation because Mollohan is a loyal vote for the Obama administration. "Has Attorney GeneralEric Holder now made it legal for members of Congress to earmark money to their business partners?This is a horrible precedent," Flaherty said.

The Mollohan investigation came at the height of Democratic attacks on what Pelosi, then the minorityleader, called the Republican "culture of corruption." Mollohan served as ranking Democrat on theethics panel when it admonished House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in 2004 over fundraisingactivities. Mollohan also fought rules changes that GOP leaders imposed in 2005, leading to a virtualshutdown of the committee's work for several months.

Shortly after the investigation became public, Mollohan stepped down from the ethics committee. WhenDemocrats claimed the majority in January 2007, Mollohan took over as chairman of the Appropriationsjustice subcommittee, but recused himself from voting on matters specifically related to the FBI and theattorney general's office.

In his statement Tuesday, Mollohan defended helping to fund the nonprofit groups: "These nonprofits

are all about building West Virginia's economy and making our state a better place to live. I am veryhappy that they will be able to put this behind them and refocus on their core missions to create goodjobs and improve the lives of West Virginians."


Post a Comment


2/14/20113:16



Just ice Dept. ends probe o f Rep. Mollohan

Youmust be loggedin to leave a comment. Login IReeistel

Submit

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20 1 %

Comments that include profanity or personalattacks or other inappropriate comments or material 'Nillbe removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain"signatures" by someone other than the actual author 'Nillbe removed. Finally, we 'Nilltake steps to block users who violate any of ourposting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rlJlesgoverningcommentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Sponsored Links

Dermatologists Hate HerClever Mom Uses $5 Trick to Erase Wrinkles and Look Younger Instantly.www.vanityreports.comlwrinkle-free

Groupon" Official Site1 ridiculous ly huge coupon a day. Like doing your city a t90% off!www.Groupon.com

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

Buya link here

© 2010 The Washington Post Company

foia appeal: crew: fbi: regarding mollohan investigation: 04/06/11

Documents