corbett press release

8/14/2019 Corbett Press Release

1/21

HARRISBURG - As part of an ongoing public corruption investigation into thePennsylvania Legislature, agents from the Attorney General's Public Corruption Unittoday filed criminal charges against Representative John Perzel and former RepublicanRepresentative Brett Feese. Also charged are eight current or former aides to Perzel andFeese.

Attorney General Tom Corbett said the charges are part of an ongoing grand juryinvestigation into the misuse of public resources and employees for campaign purposes inthe Pennsylvania Legislature.(Review the grand jury report:Part 1,Part 2 &Part 3)Corbett said the grand jury issued a 188 page presentment recommending that he filecriminal charges against the defendants.

Among those charged, in addition to Perzel and Feese, are Perzel's former Chief of Staff,Brian Preski; his current Chief of Staff, Paul Towhey; Perzel's brother-in-law and former

House employee, Samual "Buzz" Stokes; Perzel legislative aide John Zimmerman; Perzelcampaign aide Don McClintock; Feese aides Jill Seaman and Elmer Bowman; and formerHouse Republican Information Technology Deputy Director Eric Ruth.

The defendants are each charged with numerous theft, criminal conspiracy and conflict ofinterest charges. Additionally, Perzel, Feese, Seaman, Towhey and Zimmerman are eachcharged with obstruction of justice.

Corbett said that in the first phase of the investigation his agents charged 12 defendants inJuly of 2008. Trials are scheduled for December and January 2010.

As in the first phase of the investigation, Corbett said, the grand jury uncovered aconcerted plan to use taxpayers' funds, employees and resources for political campaignpurposes.

Corbett said during this phase of the investigation, millions of e-mails, faxes, contracts,letters, memos and other documents were acquired and thousands of pages of testimonyhave been presented to the grand jury. Additionally, hundreds of interviews wereconducted.

Evidence was recovered from various locations in the United States. Agents andattorneys traveled to New Orleans and Washington, D.C. as part of their efforts to

reconstruct the extensive amounts of pertinent evidence that was reportedly missing fromthe House Republican Caucus.
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/GJ-Presentment_No2_page1-63.pdfhttp://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/GJ-Presentment_No2_page64-119.pdfhttp://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/GJ-Presentment_No2_page120-188.pdfhttp://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/GJ-Presentment_No2_page64-119.pdfhttp://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/GJ-Presentment_No2_page120-188.pdfhttp://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/GJ-Presentment_No2_page1-63.pdf


2/21

Obstruction of theInvestigationCorbett said the review andanalysis of this huge volumeof material, in a criminal

investigation of thismagnitude, was an extremelytime consuming butnecessary process. He notedthat the criminal obstructionby some in the HouseRepublican Caucus, as wellas a determined effort bysome in the HouseRepublican Caucus not tocooperate with the

investigation, played a largepart in the length of the investigation.

Corbett said his office, as well as the grand jury, experienced a series of deliberate acts byHouse Republican members and employees to obstruct and hinder the investigation. As aresult of their impediment to the investigation, significant amounts of time and resourceshad to be spent in litigation, investigating the absence of certain evidence and testing theaccuracy of information provided in response to the grand jury process.

Corbett said that these efforts to obstruct the investigation have resulted in significantdelays in the grand jury's efforts to define potential crimes, identify those who committed

the crimes and to protect those who are innocent of criminal wrongdoing.

Corbett said that while some charges of obstruction of justice have been filed today, anobstruction of justice investigation within the House Republican Caucus continues.

Habay PrecedentAs mentioned in the prior phase of the investigation, Corbett said, the investigation,prosecution, conviction and prison sentence of former Republican Representative JeffHabay in 2004 and 2005 by the Attorney General's Office for using his legislative stafffor campaign and fundraising purposes should have put legislative leaders and their staffson notice that the Attorney General's Office and the courts take a stern view of suchillegal activity.

Corbett said the grand jury used the guidance of the Pennsylvania Superior Court in itsHabay decision, when the Court stated that an elected representative is "not allowed todirect state paid employees under his authority to conduct campaign and or fundraisingrelated work, during state paid time, for his personal benefit." The court said suchactions secure "a private monetary advantage" for an elected representative because, "byhaving state employees work for him on his campaign and or fundraising tasks while they


3/21

were being paid by the state, he obtained the benefit of free campaignwork funded by the taxpayers."

Representative John PerzelThe grand jury found that John Perzel was the architect behind a

sophisticated criminal strategy that ultimately spent more than $10million of taxpayers' money purely for campaign work. Once thefoundation of Perzel's illegal scheme was in place, the grand juryfound Perzel went to great lengths to maintain control and expand hispower through illegal means.

The grand jury heard testimony on John Perzel's rise to power and hisplan to maintain and expand his power.

John Perzel was elected to the House of Representatives by the votersfrom Northeast Philadelphia in 1978, he was elected by the

Republican House members as Chairman of the House RepublicanCaucus in 1990, and then House Majority Leader in 1994 when theRepublicans won the majority in the House of Representatives. Perzelserved as Majority Leader until 2003, when he was elected Speaker ofthe House by the members upon the death of Representative MatthewRyan. Perzel remained Speaker until the Democratic Caucus regainedthe majority status of the House of Representatives in 2006.

The grand jury found that Perzel was aggressive in the acquisition andretention of power. He demanded obedience and loyalty and punishedthose, whether they were elected officials or employees, who

challenged his power.

Contrary to prior practices as speaker, Perzel retained a virtuallyunprecedented degree of power over the resources of the HouseRepublican Caucus, including funding for various caucus departmentssuch as Research, District Operations, Printing and Information andTechnology.

Republican House members and employees who were favored byPerzel, such as former Representative Brett Feese, were rewarded withprominent positions in the Republican Caucus. Brian Preski, whoserved as Perzel's Chief of Staff from 2000 to 2007, was arguably themost powerful person in caucus short of Perzel himself.

Perzel's 2000 Election and the Rise of TechnologyThe grand jury found that Perzel's 2000 election campaign became adefining moment and the impetus for much of the criminal activitythat the grand jury investigated. On election eve in 2000, after theinitial vote count, Perzel was losing his re-election in his Northeast

Click on images

for larger photo

John Perzel

Brett Feese

Brian Preski

Paul Towhey

Samuel "Buzz"

Stokes
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834


4/21

Philadelphia legislative district. After the absentee ballots were counted, he won byfewer than 100 votes.

The grand jury found that Perzel vowed to never experience another close electoralchallenge and instilled that mindset in his staff and employees of the Republican Caucus.

Perzel put everyone on notice that everything possible would be done to prevent anotherclose election.

The grand jury found that after the 2000 election, Perzel, who had always been interestedin the use of technology in campaigns, made technology a priority and forcefully relatedhis mantra to his campaign staff, his legislative staff and other key employees of thecaucus.

Perzel traveled to many different technology conventions and shows around the nation aspart of his quest for ideas and equipment to realize his ambitions. He also attendedcampaign seminars and returned to the caucus with ideas.

Corbett said that through the use of a small, but loyal and close-knit group, Perzelembarked on his plan to use technology to gain a competitive advantage in campaigns,for himself and other candidates throughout the state in order to maintain and increase hispower.

The grand jury found that as time went by, campaign work became so pervasive that itwas institutionalized. The conduct of campaign work through the RepublicanInformation Technology (RIT) and public resources became so commonplace that suchefforts were largely treated as normal assignments by the staff. Virtually every employeeof RIT became aware of Perzel's interest and direct involvement in the acquisition,

development and use of technology for campaign purposes.

Perzel's BlueCard ProgramThe grand jury found that after Perzel's close election in 2000, he initiated the creation ofa program that would maintain accurate data about the individuals in each household inhis district. A data card would be filled out for every individual in a household andwould contain important information about each individual including birthdates, phonenumbers, e-mail addresses, who they planned on voting for and whether they would like ayard sign for the candidate. The purpose was to determine whether an individual in ahousehold was for Perzel, against Perzel, undecided or refused to talk. The informationwas contained on blue cards and became known as the "BlueCard" system.

The BlueCard program was a two piece system; the first piece included sendingcampaign employees to every door in Perzel's district to fill out the information on theBlueCard, while the second part was the creation of a database.

Perzel's idea was not simply to keep the BlueCards in a file drawer for manual referenceduring campaigns, but to align all the information on the cards with technology to make itmore easily accessible and deployable for campaign purposes.
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=4834


5/21

Perzel put Samual "Buzz" Stokes, his brother-in-law and campaign manager, in charge ofthe BlueCard program. The grand jury found that despite the control of the BlueCardprogram by the campaign, little or no Perzel campaign funds or resources ended up beingused in the creation and development of the BlueCard program. The BlueCard effort wasachieved at the expense of the Pennsylvania taxpayers.

The grand jury found that the RIT staff spent countless hours working on programs tomake the BlueCard system more efficient. The grand jury found that Perzel and hiscampaign personnel became frustrated that the improvements the RIT staff were makingdid not meet their standards. To help solve this problem Perzel hired his wife's nephew,Eric Ruth, to be the Deputy Director of RIT. Ruth spent most of his time ensuring thatPerzel's BlueCard program took priority over everything else the staff did.

The grand jury found that in January of 2002, despite the efforts of RIT, theresponsibility of the BlueCard program was shifted to a private vendor, GCR &Associates in New Orleans, Louisiana.

The grand jury found that Perzel abhorred chance and uncertainty and, as a result,aggressively sought to build redundancy and safety nets into projects he viewed asessential to his success.

The grand jury found that Perzel's campaign staff wielded a tremendous amount of powerand authority within the Capitol and that their requests took priority even overRepublican Representatives and their staffs.

In 2003, the grand jury found that another vendor, Aristotle International Inc. fromWashington DC, had been retained by the caucus and was heavily involved in improving

and modifying the BlueCard program at taxpayers' expense. Aristotle's work modernizedthe program and made it faster and more user friendly. The grand jury found thatAristotle spent more than $80,000 on the BlueCard program.

The grand jury found that with the success of the BlueCard program in his own district in2002, Perzel directed the RIT staff to create the BlueCard system for numerous otherHouse districts in the 2004 election cycle. It was also created for a state senate districtand congressional district. The grand jury found that this was part of Perzel's effort toexpand his campaign influence all across the state.

In 2005, the BlueCard program was used in a special election in the 131st legislative

district. Additionally in 2005, Perzel established the BlueCard system citywide inPhiladelphia.

Telstar/Election Day CompleteAs part of his effort to ensure his re-election, the grand jury found that Perzel directed thedevelopment of a sophisticated computer system to ensure that his supporters went to thepolls on election day.


6/21

The traditional way in which candidates accomplished this was having the campaigncheck off the names of voters at the polling places as they came in to vote and then takingthe list back to campaign headquarters. They would then call or drive to the homes of thepeople that did not vote. Perzel wanted to use technology to make this system muchmore efficient and employed the staff of the RIT help to accomplish this.

Perzel's idea was to use handheld computers which had each of the registered voters inthe precinct or division in Philadelphia loaded onto it. The campaign workers at thepolling places would simply click a name on the handheld computer and have thatinformation electronically transmitted to a common database. Perzel believed that thiswas a way that he could maximize limited resources on Election Day.

The original handheld computer idea was called Telstar, however the grand jury foundthat as the program became much bigger, more complicated and interconnected to manyother technological endeavors, over time it became known as Election Day Complete.The key to making this program work was the purchase of handheld computers, which

were completely paid for by the Republican Caucus.

The first-full scale deployment of the Telstar/Election Day Complete system took placein the April 2002 special election in Monroe County. Telstar was viewed as largelysuccessful in this election.

Anthony Painter, who was the director of the RIT, testified before the grand jury thatafter elections in which the Telstar/Election Day Complete system was used, the RITstaff made improvements to the system for Perzel's re-election campaign.

As the system was further refined and improved, Telstar/Election Day Complete was

used in the 2002 general election in Perzel's district as well as in the 148th and 153rdlegislative districts.

The grand jury found that Perzel shared the technology with the House RepublicanCampaign Committee (HRCC), which is the outside campaign arm of the RepublicanCaucus. John Hanley, the Executive Director of the HRCC, testified before the grandjury that the system became a part of their election day activities and it was usedextensively from 2002 through 2006.

Hanley also stated that Perzel was very protective of the system, but also wanted thecredit for helping candidates by allowing them use Election Day Complete.

In addition to handheld computers, the system also required high-quality servers andother equipment such as modems, laptop computers and stand-alone printers, all paid forby the taxpayers. Additionally, all of the data was put onto the handheld and othercomputers by the RIT staff.

Prior to its implementation on election day, the RIT staffers would physically transfer theequipment from the Capitol and set it up at the candidates campaign headquarters.


7/21

However, the first thing the RIT staff would do is remove all property tags identifying theequipment as the property of the Republican Caucus.

As the system evolved, Perzel insisted that the vendor GCR work on improving thesystem and eventually Aristotle also worked on the program, all at taxpayers' expense.

Ironically, the grand jury found that the Telstar/Election Day Complete system was usedin the April 2006 special election held to replace former Representative Jeff Habay, whowas leaving office because he was arrested and convicted by the Attorney General'sOffice for criminal use of public resources for campaign purposes. One of the RITemployees testified before the grand jury "how truly 'weird' it was to prepare to use all ofthese public resources to fill the seat of a guy who just went to jail for illegal campaignactivities."

Enterprise DatabaseThe grand jury heard testimony from campaign experts that stated that next to money,

information about voters is fundamental to a campaign's success. Accurate andaccessible voter information enables campaigns to effectively convey their messagesthrough political mailings, political phone calls, door to door efforts and election dayactivities.Perzel and his co-conspirators entered into a $4 million contract with GCR specificallydesigned to fulfill the dual purpose of storing information useful for elected Republicanrepresentatives as part of their constituents' service programs and storing informationabout Pennsylvania voters to fuel campaigns.

The data included maps of voting districts, results of all major Pennsylvania elections

since 1992, a statewide voter information file of all registered voters, their locations andpast voting histories, a profile of all voting precincts in Pennsylvania and voting patternsby the precincts and political affiliations. GCR named the project the EnterpriseDatabase.

The caucus provided GCR with huge amounts of data, with well over seven and halfmillion records at a time being sent by the RIT staffers to start the data warehouses. Thegrand jury found that Perzel campaign workers Stokes and McClintock were veryinterested in being able to access the Enterprise Database for Perzel's BlueCard system.

The grand jury found that the primary user of the Enterprise Database was the House

Republican Campaign Committee (HRCC).

As part of his fixation for redundancy, the grand jury found that Perzel employedAristotle to produce a separate and superior version of Enterprise Database. Aristotlecalled their database ODS and promised they would develop it faster and make it largerand more efficient than the GCR's Enterprise Database.


8/21

The EdgeThe grand jury found that one of the primary campaign programs that Perzel directedGCR to produce for the caucus was called "The Edge," because it was designed to giveRepublicans the edge in elections.

The Edge was fundamentally designed as a web-based tool to "mine" or "model" thePennsylvania voter data to give it functionality. A user could access the voter databaseand determine political party, sex, jurisdiction, religion, etc. The Edge also containeddata about favorable voters, e-mail addresses and voter preferences.

The grand jury reviewed numerous e-mails and other documents that clearlydemonstrated that The Edge was created and used solely for campaign purposes.

The Edge was frequently used by the HRCC and was recognized as one of their primarycampaign tools. Neither the HRCC, nor Perzel's campaign ever paid for any of TheEdge, which was entirely paid for by taxpayers.

Candidate ConnectThe grand jury found that one of the largest and most successful of the campaignprograms produced by GCR for the caucus was "Candidate Connect," which became ahighly sophisticated computer program designed to guide, instruct and assist Republicancandidates from start to finish on their campaigns. Candidate Connect was the idea ofFeese staffer Al Bowman, who retained oversight and controlled the program throughoutits existence.

The grand jury found that Candidate Connect became one of the fundamental campaigntools for the HRCC. The HRCC worked in 40 districts, while assisting many others

through the assistance of Candidate Connect.

The development and maintenance of the Candidate Connect software, which had noconstituent purpose, was used in campaigns from 2004 through 2006 and cost thetaxpayers $1.4 million.

The program was deemed a success because it achieved its primary goal of providingvaluable assistance to individual campaigns in a cost saving manner to the HRCC.Requests for access to Candidate Connect or assistance in operating Candidate Connectall came through Al Bowman and Jill Seaman.

GCR and AristotleThe grand jury found that both GCR and Aristotle produced constituent service programsfor use by the Republican Caucus members and their staffs. GCR's program was calledRepNet, which was later replaced by Aristotle's CS-4 program.

The grand jury found that the caucus paid GCR $9,286,980 from 2001 through 2007,approximately $4.5 million of which was for work on campaign programs such as


9/21

BlueCard, TelStar/Election Day Complete, Enterprise Database, The Edge, CandidateConnect and Contribution Tracker.

Aristotle received $6.2 million from the caucus, of which the majority was for their workon campaign programs such as BlueCard, ODS, and DataCon.

Label and Lists, Constituents Direct and Weiss MicromarketingThe grand jury found that the caucus spent millions of dollars purchasing voter data fromprivate vendors to fuel the campaign programs such as the Enterprise Database, The Edgeand Candidate Connect. The three primary vendors were Constituents Direct, WeissMicromarketing and Labels and Lists.

Constituents Direct primarily obtained e-mail addresses of registered voters for thecaucus and developed a web-based system to distribute the e-mails. From 2002 to 2007they were paid $3,756,000.

Weiss Micromarketing Group is owned by Michael Weiss, a marketing anddemographics expert. Through detailed analysis of voter data, Weiss developedpredictive models for elections in legislative districts, including Perzel's, and developedplans on how the segmentation of voter data could help with fundraising, campaignadvertising and get out the vote efforts. Weiss was paid approximately $400,000.

The caucus paid Labels and Lists, a leading national vendor of publicly accessibleinformation about individuals, $500,000 for voter data purchases.

Republican Information Technology Staff CostsThe grand jury heard that virtually every member of the RIT between 2000 and 2007

provided direct evidence of the misuse of public resources. Many of the workers testifiedthat they spent between 40 to 70 percent of their time dedicated to campaign efforts.

William Tomaselli, who was a close aide to Perzel, testified before the grand jury that hehad been deeply involved in many of the campaign activities in the RIT office. Tomasellistated that in 2007 he conducted an extensive study of the historical work and salaries ofcaucus employees and that from 2001 to 2007, RIT staff members spent approximately$800,000 working on campaign projects.

Perzel's Dirty Tricks Against RepublicansThe grand jury found that Perzel punished a group of Republican House members who

refused to adequately conform to his directives on how they should vote by directinguntraceable "robo" or automated calls against them in their districts.

The calls were scripted in an extremely critical and damaging way against arepresentative in question and would often allow a constituent to directly connect to therepresentative's office to complain about the alleged misconduct portrayed in the call.


10/21

The grand jury found that Perzel used GCR to carry out the calls and they usuallyobtained a third-party phone vendor to make the calls. GCR charged the caucus for thecalls, which cost approximately $3,200 each time they were implemented. Perzeldirected robo calls against his own members about a dozen times.

Perzel's Ghost EmployeeThe grand jury found that afterPerzel's narrow victory in the2000 election, he vowed tokeep a campaign office inoperation year round. Perzelput his brother-in law, Samuel"Buzz" Stokes, in charge of theoffice and placed DonMcClintock as the campaignoffice manager.

Republican Information Technology staffers, who are employed by the taxpayers to workonly on the computer and technical needs of the Republican Caucus, treated Perzel'scampaign office as their top priority.

The RIT staff installed, maintained, upgraded and supported all of Perzel's campaigncomputers and computer systems. The RIT staff took their direction directly from Stokesand McClintock.

In December 2000, Perzel put Stokes on the caucus payroll, although all of his time wasspent on Perzel's campaign. Stokes' position as a caucus employee was hidden from

nearly all of Perzel's Capitol and district staff. The grand jury found that even Perzel'sdistrict office manager, who would have been Stokes' supervisor, had no idea that Stokeswas a state employee.

A specific review by the grand jury of thousands of e-mails and documents of Stokes'work product from 2000 through 2007 found that Stokes' time was spent on campaignactivities and little to no evidence was uncovered that Stokes performed any legislativework.

Over a six year period, from 2000 through 2006, Stokes was paid a total of $196,808 bythe taxpayers for doing campaign work for Perzel. A grand jury review of Stokes'

personnel file indicates that Preski twice recommended raises for Stokes.

Perzel Fundraising OperationThe grand jury found that Perzel had many staffers perform campaign fundraising dutiesduring normal working hours and used government computers. A key staff member inPerzel's district office stated that, "fundraising was made part of my job."


11/21

The grand jury found that many of Perzel's staff members spent hundreds of hours oftheir taxpayer paid time preparing fundraising mailings for Perzel's re-election efforts.Perzel sent solicitation letters to his constituents, which he dubbed "the little people,"who made contributions of small amounts, often as low as $5 or $10.

In addition to his own staff, Perzel also tasked the RIT staff to assist in his fundraisingefforts. The grand jury found that one RIT computer programmer was directed todevelop a fundraising website and database which ultimately became known as theSpeaker's Ball management tool. The programmer spent three months on the project.

The Speaker's Ball, a charity fundraising event initiated by Perzel, was held inconjunction with a fundraiser for Perzel's re-election efforts.

Additionally, the grand jury found that Perzel took advantage of the taxpayer fundedresources of GCR and Aristotle for his own campaign fundraising purposes. In July of2005, Aristotle was developing a comprehensive, full-service fundraising program called

360, which would manage campaign financing. It was paid in part at the expense ofPennsylvania taxpayers.

While the 360 program never became fully operational, Perzel's taxpayer-paid staff madeextensive use of the fundraising program.

While Aristotle was working on the 360 program, Perzel staffers also directed GCR todevelop a web-based fundraising tool. GCR programmers spent three months, again atthe expense of Pennsylvania taxpayers, developing a program called ContributionTracker that would "mine" data from campaign finance reports, so that the names ofindividuals who contributed large sums of money could be easily identified and put into a

database.

District OperationsThe House Republican Caucus has employees located throughout the state that werehired to assist elected Republican representatives in their district offices and aid themwith a variety of tasks, including constituent outreach programs and helping newlyelected members establish practice and procedures in their district offices. Theseemployees are assigned to a department called District Operations.

The grand jury found that from 2001 through 2006, and to a lesser extent after 2006,District Operations was a subsidiary of the House Republican Campaign Committee,

which was under the direction of Perzel and Feese.

The grand jury found that most of the District Operations employees hired during thistime were hired because of their campaign and or fundraising skills. For the majority ofthe new hires, who worked out of their homes, it was clearly understood that as part oftheir legislative job that they would work on campaigns.


12/21

The District Operations employees, under thedirection of Feese, recruited candidates forlegislative seats, assisted in getting Republicancandidates on the ballot, getting opponents off theballot through nominating petition challenges and

conducted opposition research, all at thetaxpayers' expense.

Greystone and SKPThe grand jury found that Perzel's overarching plan in developing data-driven,technologically proficient campaigning programs at the taxpayers' expense was motivatednot only by his desire to obtain and keep political power, but also to personally enrichhimself.

Perzel and Preski formed a business with their wives Sheryl Perzel and Kelly Preski,called Greystone, which later became SKP. The business plan was to market and sell the

campaign programs, which the RIT employees and GCR had developed, to candidatesaround the country. The goal, in the words of Preski, was "to make us millionaires."

Although there appears to be little evidence that their business venture was successful, itdemonstrates that Perzel, Preski, and their wives, attempted to personally profit from theprograms and software that was developed and paid for the by taxpayers ofPennsylvania.

Obstruction of Justice: Perzel's Missing BoxesAs was previously stated, Corbett said that agents and prosecutors from the AttorneyGeneral's Office encountered numerous impediments and obstacles created by the

defendants and others during the course of this investigation with respect to records andinformation. One such incident, which can be revealed at this time, occurred in lateFebruary 2008.

Corbett said that on Feb. 26, 2008, the grand jury served a series of subpoenas upon theHouse Republican Caucus seeking an array of information related to this investigation.The caucus was ordered to produce "any and all evidence of campaign work" and listed anumber of employees who may have performed the campaign work.

Two days later, Corbett said, an employee of the Pennsylvania Legislature came to theAttorney General's Office and stated that boxes containing campaign materials were

being removed from room B-02, a basement storage room assigned to Perzel in theCapitol Complex.

After further investigation, Corbett said a grand jury subpoena was issued the next day,February 29, ordering the immediate production of any and all documents or materialsremoved from the storage room on February 26 or during the prior 60 days. It alsoordered the disclosure of the location of any and all materials removed from the room.


13/21

Corbett said on evening of February 29, an agent and a prosecutor from the AttorneyGeneral's Public Corruption Unit went to the Capitol Complex and inspected numerousboxes that reportedly had been removed from the storage room. They were escorted byCapitol security officers, attorneys for the Republican Caucus and Perzel's staff membersJohn Zimmerman and Paul Towhey.

When questioned by the Attorney General's Office that evening, Zimmerman andTowhey, denied any knowledge of boxes containing campaign material being removedfrom the storage room.

Corbett said a subsequent investigation by agents found that the boxes containingevidence of campaign work performed by public employees had in fact been removedfrom the storage room on and before February 26.

Corbett said that testimony of caucus messengers, which is corroborated by Capitolsecurity video footage, confirm that two cart loads of boxes were transferred from the

storage room to Perzel's office suite located in the Main Capitol Building.

The grand jury found that prior to February 29, Perzel's secretary had twice gone to thestorage room and examined the materials and told Towhey, who was then Perzel's chiefof staff, of the existence of campaign materials. Towhey ordered her to have thematerials transferred to Perzel's office suite and then to move the campaign materials andevidence of campaign work out of Perzel's suite to the House Republican CampaignCommittee offices, which are located across the street from the Capitol Complex.

On February 27, the boxes were transferred by messenger to the HRCC office, which wasconfirmed by testimony of the messenger who delivered the boxes, messenger logs and

testimony of the Executive Secretary of the HRCC, who received the boxes.

The HRCC Executive Secretary also testified that a few days after the boxes arrived, shereceived a call from Feese, who asked her if boxes from Perzel's office had beendelivered a few days before.

The grand jury reviewed Towhey's phone records for the week of February 25 for thetimes pertinent to the hiding of campaign materials, including the time of the service ofthe subpoena and the inspection by the Attorney General's Office. Towhey's phonerecords indicate that during this time he was in frequent telephone contact with Perzel,Feese, Zimmerman and Perzel's secretary.

The grand jury found that Perzel, Feese, Towhey and Zimmerman engaged inobstructing the investigation and hindering prosecution by the removal of evidence, thehiding of evidence and/or the failure to disclose the existence and location of evidence.

Obstruction of Justice: Feese's Fraudulent NotesFeese, who had been an elected member of the House of Representatives from LycomingCounty, did not run for re-election in 2006 and was hired by the caucus in January 2007


14/21

as chief counsel to the caucus. Feese's yearly salary as chief counsel began at $155,000and was increased to $196,999 in November 2008.

Feese, as was previously stated, was a confidant of Perzel and had been one of the mostpowerful members of the caucus, having previously been elected by members of the

caucus as Minority Whip, Appropriations Chairman and Chairman of the HouseRepublican Campaign Committee.

As chief counsel to the caucus, Feese was intimately involved in the collection andreview of evidence sought by the grand jury regarding its investigation of the RepublicanCaucus.

Corbett said that not only was Feese aware of the materials being sought by the grandjury, he was also well aware of the growing frustration of investigators as a result ofmissing or incomplete information.

This frustration was clearly demonstrated at a series of contempt hearings before theSupervising Judge of the grand jury from October 2008 to December 2008, which washeld for the purpose of forcing the caucus into compliance with subpoenas and courtorders.

In December 2008, agents were provided with copies of several handwritten notes byFeese and his assistant, Jill Seaman, directly pertinent to the investigation. The notespurport to have been taken at meetings held by Feese in 2007 and 2008 with variousemployees of the caucus and some vendors.

The notes supposedly represent some kind of investigation conducted by Feese within the

caucus beginning in February of 2007 into the illegal use of public resources forcampaign purposes. The notes specifically discuss the GCR programs such as theEnterprise Database, The Edge, Candidate Connect as well as contracts with Aristotle,Labels and Lists, Constituents Direct and others.

The notes take great pains to state that Feese had no idea that these illegal activities hadbeen occurring and stand in stark contrast with evidence and testimony before the grandjury.

The delivery of Feese's handwritten notes led to another extensive and time consumingavenue of the investigation.

The grand jury ordered that Feese turn over a complete set of the original handwrittennotes to agents and in April 2009, a set of original handwritten notes was turned over toagents.

The grand jury found that handwritten notes produced by Feese and Seaman werefabricated for the intentional purpose of obstructing and hindering the investigation. Thegrand jury also found that the notes are demonstratively false and intentionally sought to


15/21

mislead investigators into believing that Feese had been unaware and uninvolved in theuse of public resources for campaign purposes.

Corbett said the defendants will be prosecuted in Dauphin County by Public CorruptionUnit prosecutors Frank G. Fina, Patrick Blessington and Kenneth K. Brown II. They are

scheduled to surrender tomorrow and be arraigned before Harrisburg Magisterial DistrictJudge William C. Wenner.

Below is a list of the defendants and the charges against them:John Perzel, 59, 7810 Brous Ave., Philadelphia, is charged with:

Conflict of Interest, 65 Pa. C.S.A.1103 (F3), 13 Counts (1 Count as to each ofthe following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC;6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) Perzel Campaign and District Offices; 8)

Ghost Employees; 9) Greystone/SKP; 10)Fundraising; 11) District Operations;12)Trips; 13) Miscellaneous Use of Public Resources; Theft By Unlawful Taking Or Disposition, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3921(F3), 13 Counts (1

Count as to each of the following): 1) Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCRand Associates, Inc.; 3) Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5)Constituents Direct, LLC; 6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) Perzel Campaignand District Offices; 8) Ghost Employees; 9) Greystone/SKP; 10)Fundraising; 11)District Operations; 12)Trips; 13) Miscellaneous Use of Public Resources;

Theft Of Services, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3926 (F3), 13 Counts (1 Count as to each of thefollowing): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC;

6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) Perzel Campaign and District Offices; 8)Ghost Employees; 9) Greystone/SKP; 10)Fundraising; 11) District Operations;12)Trips; 13) Miscellaneous Use of Public Resources;

Theft By Deception, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3922 (a)(1), (F3), 13 Counts (1 Count as toeach of the following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates,Inc.; 3) Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) ConstituentsDirect, LLC; 6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) Perzel Campaign and DistrictOffices; 8) Ghost Employees; 9) Greystone/SKP; 10)Fundraising; 11) DistrictOperations; 12)Trips; 13) Miscellaneous Use of Public Resources;

Theft By Failure to Make Required Disposition of Funds Received, 18 Pa. C.S.A.3927 (F3), 13 Counts (1 Count as to each of the following): 1)Use of RIT staffand resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3) Aristotle International Inc.; 4)Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC; 6) Weiss MicromarketingGroup; 7) Perzel Campaign and District Offices; 8) Ghost Employees; 9)Greystone/SKP; 10)Fundraising; 11) District Operations; 12)Trips; 13)Miscellaneous Use of Public Resources;

Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution, 18 Pa.C.S.A.5105 (F3), 1 Count, as toMissing Boxes.


16/21

Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function (M2), 1Count, as to Missing Boxes.

Criminal Conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S.A.903 (F3), 14 Counts (One count as to each ofthe following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC;

6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) Perzel Campaign and District Offices; 8)Ghost Employees; 9) Greystone/SKP; 10)Fundraising; 11) District Operations;12)Trips; 13) Miscellaneous Use of Public Resources; 14) Hindering-MissingBoxes.

Criminal Conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 903 (M2), 1 Count as to Obstructing-MissingBoxes.

Brian Preski, 44, 9901 Player Dr., Philadelphia, is charged with:

Conflict of Interest, 65 Pa. C.S.A.1103 (F3), 12 Counts (1 Count as to each ofthe following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)

Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC;6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) Perzel Campaign and District Offices; 8)Ghost Employees; 9) Greystone/SKP; 10)Fundraising; 11) District Operations;12)Trips.

Theft By Unlawful Taking Or Disposition, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3921(F3), 12 Counts (1Count as to each of the following): 1) Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCRand Associates, Inc.; 3) Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5)Constituents Direct, LLC; 6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) Perzel Campaignand District Offices; 8) Ghost Employees; 9) Greystone/SKP; 10)Fundraising; 11)District Operations; 12)Trips.

Theft Of Services, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3926 (F3), 12 Counts (1 Count as to each of the

following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC;6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) Perzel Campaign and District Offices; 8)Ghost Employees; 9) Greystone/SKP; 10)Fundraising; 11) District Operations;12)Trips.

Theft By Deception, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3922 (a)(1), (F3), 12 Counts (1 Count as toeach of the following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates,Inc.; 3) Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) ConstituentsDirect, LLC; 6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) Perzel Campaign and DistrictOffices; 8) Ghost Employees; 9) Greystone/SKP; 10)Fundraising; 11) DistrictOperations; 12)Trips.

Theft By Failure to Make Required Disposition of Funds Received, 18 Pa. C.S.A.3927 (F3), 12 Counts (1 Count as to each of the following): 1)Use of RIT staffand resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3) Aristotle International Inc.; 4)Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC; 6) Weiss MicromarketingGroup; 7) Perzel Campaign and District Offices; 8) Ghost Employees; 9)Greystone/SKP; 10)Fundraising; 11) District Operations; 12)Trips.

Criminal Conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S.A.903 (F3), 12 Counts (One count as to each ofthe following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)


17/21

Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC;6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) Perzel Campaign and District Offices; 8)Ghost Employees; 9) Greystone/SKP; 10)Fundraising; 11) District Operations;12)Trips.

Brett Feese, 55, 6330 Dunwoody Road, Munch, is charged with:

Conflict of Interest, 65 Pa. C.S.A.1103 (F3), 9 Counts (1 Count as to each of thefollowing): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC;6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) District Operations; 8)Trips; 9)Miscellaneous Use of Public Resources.

Theft By Unlawful Taking Or Disposition, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3921(F3), 9 Counts (1Count as to each of the following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR andAssociates, Inc.; 3) Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5)Constituents Direct, LLC; 6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) District

Operations; 8)Trips; 9) Miscellaneous Use of Public Resources. Theft Of Services, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3926 (F3), 9 Counts (1 Count as to each of the

following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC;6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) District Operations; 8)Trips; 9)Miscellaneous Use of Public Resources.

Theft By Deception, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3922 (a)(1), (F3), 9 Counts (1 Count as toeach of the following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates,Inc.; 3) Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) ConstituentsDirect, LLC; 6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) District Operations; 8)Trips; 9)Miscellaneous Use of Public Resources.

Theft By Failure to Make Required Disposition of Funds Received, 18 Pa. C.S.A.3927 (F3), 9 Counts (1 Count as to each of the following): 1)Use of RIT staffand resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3) Aristotle International Inc.; 4)Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC; 6) Weiss MicromarketingGroup; 7) District Operations; 8)Trips; 9) Miscellaneous Use of Public Resources.

Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution, 18 Pa.C.S.A.5105 (F3), 2 Counts, as to:1) Missing Boxes; 2) Handwritten Notes.

Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function (M2), 2Counts, as to: 1) Missing Boxes; 2) Handwritten Notes.

Criminal Conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S.A.903 (F3), 11 Counts (1 Count as to each ofthe following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC;6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) District Operations; 8)Trips; 9)Miscellaneous Use of Public Resources; 10) Hindering-Missing Boxes; 11)Hindering-Handwritten Notes.

Criminal Conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S.A.903(M2), 2 Counts as to: 1) Missing Boxes;2) Handwritten Notes.

Elmer Bowman, 34, 977 David Dr., Red Lion, is charged with:


18/21

Conflict of Interest, 65 Pa. C.S.A.1103 (F3), 8 Counts (1 Count as to each of thefollowing); 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC;6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) District Operations; 8) Miscellaneous Use ofPublic Resources

Theft By Unlawful Taking Or Disposition, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3921(F3), 8 Counts (1Count as to each of the following); 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR andAssociates, Inc.; 3) Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5)Constituents Direct, LLC; 6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) DistrictOperations; 8) Miscellaneous Use of Public Resources.

Theft Of Services, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3926 (F3), 8 Counts (1 Count as to each of thefollowing); 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC;6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) District Operations; 8) Miscellaneous Use ofPublic Resources.

Theft By Deception, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3922 (a)(1), (F3), 8 Counts (1 Count as to

each of the following); 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates,Inc.; 3) Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) ConstituentsDirect, LLC; 6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) District Operations; 8)Miscellaneous Use of Public Resources.

Theft By Failure to Make Required Disposition of Funds Received, 18 Pa. C.S.A.3927 (F3), 8 Counts (1 Count as to each of the following): 1)Use of RIT staffand resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3) Aristotle International Inc.; 4)Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC; 6) Weiss MicromarketingGroup; 7) District Operations; 8) Miscellaneous Use of Public Resources.

Criminal Conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S.A.903 (F3), 8 Counts (1 Count as to each of thefollowing): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC;6) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 7) District Operations; 8) Miscellaneous Use ofPublic Resources.

Samuel Stokes, 66, 2980 Welsh Road, Philadelphia, is charged with:

Conflict of Interest, 65 Pa. C.S.A.1103 (F3), 7 Counts (1 Count as to each of thefollowing): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Perzel Campaign andDistrict Offices; 6) Ghost Employees; 7) Trips.

Theft By Unlawful Taking or Disposition, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3921 (F3), 7 counts. Theft Of Services, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3926 (F3), 7 Counts (1 Count as to each of the

following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Perzel Campaign andDistrict Offices; 6) Ghost Employees; 7) Trips.

Theft By Deception, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3922 (a)(1), (F3), 7 Counts (1 Count as toeach of the following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates,Inc.; 3) Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Perzel Campaignand District Offices; 6) Ghost Employees; 7) Trips.


19/21

Theft By Failure to Make Required Disposition of Funds Received, 18 Pa. C.S.A.3927 (F3), 7 Counts (1 Count as to each of the following): 1)Use of RIT staffand resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3) Aristotle International Inc.; 4)Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Perzel Campaign and District Offices; 6) GhostEmployees; 7) Trips.

Criminal Conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S.A.903 (F3), 7 Counts (1 Count as to each of thefollowing): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Perzel Campaign andDistrict Offices; 6) Ghost Employees; 7) Trips.

Jill Seaman, 57, 1401 Heritage Lane, Dauphin, is charged with:

Conflict of Interest, 65 Pa. C.S.A.1103 (F3), 7 Counts (1 Count as to each of thefollowing): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Weiss MicromarketingGroup; 6) District Operations; 7) Miscellaneous Use of Public Resources.


following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Weiss MicromarketingGroup; 6) District Operations; 7) Miscellaneous Use of Public Resources.

Theft By Deception, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3922 (a)(1), (F3), 7 Counts (1 Count as toeach of the following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates,Inc.; 3) Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) WeissMicromarketing Group; 6) District Operations; 7) Miscellaneous Use of PublicResources.

Theft By Failure to Make Required Disposition of Funds Received, 18 Pa. C.S.A.

3927 (F3), 7 Counts (1 Count as to each of the following): 1)Use of RIT staffand resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3) Aristotle International Inc.; 4)Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Weiss Micromarketing Group; 6) District Operations; 7)Miscellaneous Use of Public Resources.

Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution, 18 Pa.C.S.A.5105 (F3), 1 Count, as toHandwritten Notes.

Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function (M2), 1Count, as to Handwritten Notes.

Criminal Conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S.A.903 (F3), 8 Counts (1 Count as to each of thefollowing): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Weiss MicromarketingGroup; 6) District Operations; 7) Miscellaneous Use of Public Resources; 8)Hindering-Handwritten Notes.

Criminal Conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S.A.903(M2), 1 Count, as to Handwritten Notes.

Paul Towhey, 38, 202 Amberly Lane, Blue Bell, is charged with:


20/21

Conflict of Interest, 65 Pa. C.S.A.1103 (F3), 4 Counts (1 Count as to each of thefollowing): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Perzel Campaign and District Offices; 4) Fundraising.


following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Perzel Campaign and District Offices; 4) Fundraising. Theft By Deception, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3922 (a)(1), (F3), 4 Counts (1 Count as to

each of the following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates,Inc.; 3) Perzel Campaign and District Offices; 4) Fundraising.

Theft By Failure to Make Required Disposition of Funds Received, 18 Pa. C.S.A.3927 (F3), 4 Counts (1 Count as to each of the following): 1)Use of RIT staffand resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3) Perzel Campaign and DistrictOffices; 4) Fundraising.


Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function (M2), 1Count, as to Missing Boxes. Criminal Conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S.A.903 (F3), 5 Counts (1 Count as to each of the

following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Perzel Campaign and District Offices; 4) Fundraising; 5) Hindering-MissingBoxes.

Criminal Conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S.A.903 (M2), 1 Count as to Obstructing-MissingBoxes.

Don McClintock, 41, 6 Sandra Road, Voorhees, NJ, is charged with:

Conflict of Interest, 65 Pa. C.S.A.1103 (F3), 4 Counts (1 Count as to each of thefollowing): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International, Inc. 4) Perzel Campaign and District Offices.


following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International, Inc. 4) Perzel Campaign and District Offices.

Theft By Deception, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3922 (a)(1), (F3), 4 Counts (1 Count as toeach of the following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates,Inc.; 3) Aristotle International, Inc. 4) Perzel Campaign and District Offices.

Theft By Failure to Make Required Disposition of Funds Received, 18 Pa. C.S.A.3927 (F3), 4 Counts (1 Count as to each of the following): 1)Use of RIT staffand resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3) Aristotle International, Inc. 4)Perzel Campaign and District Offices.

Criminal Conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S.A.903 (F3), 4 Counts (1 Count as to each of thefollowing): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International, Inc. 4) Perzel Campaign and District Offices.

Eric Ruth, 34, 21636 Guadalajara, Boca Raton, FL, is charged with:


21/21

Conflict of Interest, 65 Pa. C.S.A.1103 (F3), 8 Counts (1 Count as to each of thefollowing): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC;6) Perzel Campaign and District Offices; 7) Fundraising; 8) Trips.

Theft By Unlawful Taking Or Disposition, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3921(F3), 8 Counts (1

Count as to each of the following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR andAssociates, Inc.; 3) Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5)Constituents Direct, LLC; 6) Perzel Campaign and District Offices; 7)Fundraising; 8) Trips.

Theft Of Services, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3926 (F3), 8 Counts (1 Count as to each of thefollowing): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC;6) Perzel Campaign and District Offices; 7) Fundraising; 8) Trips.

Theft By Deception, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3922 (a)(1), (F3), 8 Counts (1 Count as toeach of the following): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates,Inc.; 3) Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents

Direct, LLC; 6) Perzel Campaign and District Offices; 7) Fundraising; 8) Trips. Theft By Failure to Make Required Disposition of Funds Received, 18 Pa. C.S.A.

3927 (F3), 8 Counts (1 Count as to each of the following): 1)Use of RIT staffand resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3) Aristotle International Inc.; 4)Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC; 6) Perzel Campaign andDistrict Offices; 7) Fundraising; 8) Trips.

Criminal Conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S.A.903 (F3), 8 Counts (1 Count as to each of thefollowing): 1)Use of RIT staff and resources; 2) GCR and Associates, Inc.; 3)Aristotle International Inc.; 4) Labels and Lists, Inc.; 5) Constituents Direct, LLC;6) Perzel Campaign and District Offices; 7) Fundraising; 8) Trips.

John Zimmerman, 61, 462 Roslaire Dr., Hummelstown, is charged with:


Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function (M2), 1Count, as to Missing Boxes.

(A person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty.)

corbett press release

Documents