May 13, 2003
Trenton,
NJ — Mercer County Prosecutor Daniel G. Giaquinto announced today that his
office has concluded its investigation into the allegations that former Mercer
County Sheriff and Mercer County Democratic Chairman Samuel J.
Plumeri, now Deputy Superintendent of Police Intelligence, Public Safety
Department, The Port Authority of NY & NJ, attempted to bribe the Hopewell
Township Democratic Committee to hire attorney Joshua Markowitz as Hopewell
Township Attorney. The prosecutor
found the allegations to be unsubstantiated and the case not worthy of
presentation to a grand jury.
Prosecutor
Giaquinto stated:
·
The
allegations in this matter were extremely serious because they dealt with the
heart of public trust and good government.
They also can tarnish the reputation of the innocent.
·
Accordingly,
I entrusted this matter to a career prosecutor, Assistant Prosecutor Jay Hindman,
Chief of the Special Investigations Unit, and Detective Sergeant William
Straniero. The investigation was
overseen directly by First Assistant Prosecutor Charles E. Waldron.
·
The
allegations in this case were made over a year after the alleged attempt and are
totally uncorroborated. They are
not worthy of a grand jury presentation or further investigation.
·
This
is not a case where there simply is not enough evidence to proceed.
This is a case where the adamant denials of Mr. Plumeri and Mr. Markowitz
are credible and these individuals are affirmatively cleared by this office.
·
We
have taken the step of releasing a rather detailed summary of this investigation
so the public can fully understand our decision and have confidence that no
corruption occurred in this matter involving the public trust.
SUMMARY OF THE INVESTIGATION
The
prosecutor related the following summary:
·
FACTUAL
OVERVIEW
The investigation was initiated as a result of the release of two similar
e-mails authored and sent by Jon Edwards in January 2003 to two political groups
in Hopewell Township. In the
e-mails, Edwards expressed concern that the Hopewell Township Committee was
going to be interviewing Joshua Markowitz, Esq., for the position of Hopewell
Township municipal attorney for the 2003 calendar year.
Edwards recounted that the previous year, when he was mayor, he had
rebuffed the efforts of Democrats to have Markowitz hired as the township
attorney for 2002. In his e-mails,
Edwards alleged that the then chairman of the Mercer County Democratic Party, to
wit, Samuel J. Plumeri, told Edwards that the Hopewell Township Democratic Party
would receive $10,000 if Markowitz was appointed as the township attorney.
Edwards further alleged that the “Chair” (Plumeri) explained to him
that Markowitz would give the $10,000 to the Mercer County Democratic Party and
the money would be funneled to the Hopewell Township Democrats.
These allegations, if true, present potential violations of New
Jersey’s bribery statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2.
·
PROCEDURAL
STEPS
During
the course of the investigation, Sgt. Straniero and AP Hindman interviewed the
following people: Jon Edwards
(Hopewell Township Committee Member); Fran Bartlett (Hopewell Township Mayor and
Committee Member); Christine Smeltzer (Hopewell
Township Administrator); Michael Kahme (Hopewell Township Democratic
Chairperson); Samuel J. Plumeri (Former Mercer County Democratic Chairperson)
and Joshua Markowitz, Esq.
C.
INVESTIGATION
The first person interviewed was Jon Edwards.
He related that Michael Kahme was the first person to approach him about
hiring Joshua Markowitz, Esq. This
occurred in November 2001. According
to Edwards, Kahme gave him a piece of paper with the names of three attorneys
– one of which was Markowitz. Edwards
related that he could not remember the other two names that were on the piece of
paper. Edwards asserted that Kahme
told him that they needed to replace their township attorney (Republican John
Bennett) with a Democrat. Edwards
further alleged that Kahme told him a Democratic township attorney would
contribute money to the Hopewell Township Democratic Party.
Edwards related that he did not have the piece of paper that Kahme had
given him with the names of the attorneys and could not remember what he did
with it.
Edwards further stated that in late November/early December 2001, he
received telephone calls from numerous Democratic Party members who tried to
convince him to replace John Bennett with a Democratic township attorney.
According to Edwards, in the middle of December 2001, he called Plumeri
to let him know that John Bennett was going to be retained as the township
attorney. Edwards was tired of
being pressured and wanted Plumeri to “call off the dogs.”
According to Edwards, it was during their conversation that Plumeri told
him that if they hired Markowitz, Markowitz would give $10,000 to the Mercer
County Democratic Party and the money would be funneled down to Hopewell
Township. Edwards readily admitted that he could not swear to the words
used by Plumeri to convey the alleged offer of money if Markowitz was hired.
Nor could Edwards swear to the words he used during the alleged
conversation. Edwards was positive,
however, that he called Plumeri at Plumeri’s home from his residence in
Hopewell. He specifically
remembered looking up Plumeri’s home number in the phone book and placing the
call while standing in his kitchen. Edwards indicated that he kept his telephone bill for
December 2001 and would turn it over to the prosecutor’s office.
A copy of Edwards’ phone bill was subsequently provided.
The bill did not reflect that any calls were placed to Plumeri’s home
telephone number. A call from
Hopewell to Hamilton (where Plumeri resides) is a toll call and would have been
reflected on Edwards’ phone bill had the call been made.
At the time the phone bill was provided, our office was advised that
Edwards was having second thoughts as to whether he called Plumeri or Plumeri
called him. It should also be
noted, in this regard, that Plumeri’s home telephone number is unlisted.
Michael Kahme was interviewed.
Kahme has been the chairperson of the Hopewell Township Democratic Party
since January 2000. Kahme related
that since the Democrats were in control of Hopewell after the November 2001
elections, he thought that it was not politically correct to have John Bennett,
a leading state Senate Republican, as their township attorney. Kahme stated that he discussed with Edwards the possibility
of replacing Bennett and Edwards asked him for the names of attorneys.
Kahme stated he recommended Markowitz and several other attorneys to
Edwards as possible replacements for Bennett.
He did not recall giving Edwards a written list of names and believes he
verbally apprised Edwards of the attorney’s names.
Kahme further related that he did not remember telling Edwards that the
county Democrats would give money to Hopewell Democrats if they hired a Democrat
as the township attorney. Kahme
stated he recommended Markowitz because Markowitz was active in the Democratic
Party and because Plumeri had recommended him.
Kahme also related that Plumeri had told him that he (Plumeri) was going
to call Edwards directly about Markowitz.
Samuel J. Plumeri was interviewed and confirmed much of the
information that Kahme had provided regarding the Hopewell Township municipal
attorney position. Plumeri related
that Kahme had told him that he wanted to have John Bennett replaced as the
township attorney. Plumeri also
felt that the township should replace Bennett because he was a Republican.
Plumeri indicated that he recommended Markowitz to Kahme as a possible
replacement. Plumeri stated that he
recommended Markowitz mainly because Markowitz was a very good friend of his.
Plumeri also knew that Markowitz was the assistant township attorney in
Hamilton at that time. Plumeri
stated that he told Kahme that he would call Edwards about the township attorney
position and Markowitz. Plumeri
related that he was a little hesitant to call Edwards because he was put off by
Edwards’ behavior during their only prior contact.
However, he felt it was important that a Democratic attorney replace
Bennett as the Hopewell Township municipal attorney.
Plumeri related that he subsequently called Edwards, although he did not
remember if he called him at home or work.
Plumeri stated that his conversation with Edwards was very short.
According to Plumeri, Edwards immediately made it clear that his mind was
made up and that Bennett was not going to be replaced as the township attorney.
Plumeri stated that Edwards was so adamant about Bennett that he (Plumeri)
wasn’t sure if he even mentioned Markowitz’ name. Plumeri stated that this was the only telephone conversation
he ever had with Edwards. Plumeri
was advised that Edwards claimed that he (Edwards) had called Plumeri at home
about the township attorney position. Plumeri
stated that Edwards had never called him at home or elsewhere – that it was he
(Plumeri) who had initiated/placed the call.
Plumeri categorically and emphatically denied saying anything to Edwards
during their phone conversation that Edwards could have construed as an offer of
a bribe in the form of a $10,000 donation from Markowitz.
Plumeri related that Markowitz, while a loyal Democrat, was never a major
financial contributor to the county Democratic Party and had never donated that
kind of money. Records obtained
from the state Board of Elections confirm this.
During the interview of Joshua Markowitz, Esq., he related that
during 2001 he was an assistant township attorney in Hamilton Township. Markowitz recalled that either Plumeri (a good friend of his)
or Bob Basco, Esq. (managing partner at Hill Wallack) approached him and
inquired whether he was interested in the Hopewell Township municipal attorney
position. Markowitz subsequently
spoke with Kahme (who was also a partner in Hill Wallack as well as the chair of
the Hopewell Democrats) and told Kahme he was interested in the position.
Markowitz related that he later learned that Hopewell decided to retain
John Bennett as their township attorney for 2002.
Markowitz stated he never heard anything further about the position for
the year 2002 and never offered anyone any money in an attempt to be hired as
the Hopewell Township attorney in 2002.
Markowitz further related that in late 2002/early 2003, Mike Kahme
contacted him to see if he was interested in the township attorney position for
2003. Kahme told Markowitz to call
Fran Bartlett, Hopewell Township mayor, to find out how to apply for the
position. Markowitz subsequently
called Bartlett, and she told him to send his resume to the township
administrator. Markowitz related
that Bartlett told him he would be interviewed for the position.
Markowitz stated he had no contact whatsoever with Plumeri regarding the
job. Markowitz stated that he
subsequently interviewed for the position.
He later learned that Edwin Schmierer, Esq., had been hired to replace
John Bennett.
Markowitz also provided information regarding his history of
political donations, which was basically corroborated by the information
obtained from the state.
Fran Bartlett is the current mayor of Hopewell and has been a
member of the Township Committee since 2001.
She confirmed that Markowitz had called her in January 2003 about the
township attorney position at the direction of Mike Kahme.
Bartlett indicated that she arranged for Markowitz to be interviewed,
despite that fact that he was less qualified than some of the other applicants.
Bartlett stated that Markowitz’ interview was nothing more than a
courtesy interview, and that he was never given serious consideration for the
position. Bartlett related that Sam
Plumeri never contacted her on Markowitz’ behalf during the 2003 hiring
process. Bartlett also advised that
during the committee meeting on February 6, 2003, when Schmierer was hired to
replace John Bennett, Edwards and Hopewell Committee Member Marylou Ferrara
voiced their displeasure that Bennett was being replaced.
Edwards stated that Bennett had done a great job and there was no need to
replace him. Despite the fact that
Ferrara chose not to be present for the interview of Joshua Markowitz, she saw
fit to take a swipe at Markowitz at a public meeting, referring to him as “My Cousin Vinny.” A videotape of the February 6, 2003 meeting was provided to
us by Township Administrator Christine Smeltzer and confirms the details of the
meeting that was provided to us by Bartlett.
After completing the interviews, a third e-mail authored by Edwards and
dated June 3, 2002, was obtained by our office.
Edwards had sent this e-mail to Mike Kahme and “Campaign @ Clarity.”
The main subject of the email is the telephone conversation between
Edwards and Plumeri regarding Markowitz and the municipal attorney position.
Of note, at the beginning of the e-mail, Edwards states that he
“expressed an interest in a possible change” in the township attorney
position. During a subsequent
telephonic interview of Edwards on April 22, 2003, when asked about this
statement, Edwards stated for the first time that he had been open to the idea
of replacing Bennett as the township attorney in 2002.
This was in conflict with the position Edwards had maintained in his
initial interview and his two January 2003 e-mails.
When asked why he would consider replacing Bennett, when he had
consistently maintained that Bennett was an excellent attorney and had done a
great job for the township, Edwards claimed, for the first time, that some of
Bennett’s work for the municipality had been unsatisfactory.
Edwards also acknowledged for the first time during the April 22, 2003
telephonic interview that he had asked Kahme in November 2001 to provide him
with the names of attorneys who could possibly replace Bennett.
During his initial interview, Edwards claimed that Kahme was pressuring
him to replace Bennett.
On April 23, 2003, Edwards telephoned AP Hindman to offer
additional information about the June 3, 2002 e-mail.
In that regard, he provided information about Bennett’s legal work and
why he (Edwards) was willing to consider a change in township attorney.
Edwards stated that after speaking with Kahme in November 2001 about
replacing Bennett, he and Committee Members Marylou Ferrara and Bob Higgins
decided to retain other counsel to handle the bond, zoning litigation and
affordable housing work, and keep Bennett as the township attorney.
Edwards stated he never told Kahme of this decision so Kahme probably
continued to think that Edwards was still willing to replace Bennett for 2002.
During the telephone conversations of April 22 and April 23, 2003,
referred to above, Edwards was asked if there were any other e-mails pertaining
to the subject matter of the investigation.
Edwards responded no.
On May 1, 2003, a series of e-mails between Hopewell Township committee
members dated December 21, 2001, through January 29, 2002, was obtained by the
prosecutor’s office from a source other than Edwards.
The first e-mail is dated December 21, 2001, and was authored by
Edwards. The main topic of
discussion in the series of e-mails is the possible replacement of John Bennett
as the township attorney for the year 2002.
The reasons expressed for replacing Bennett were the tardiness of some of
his legal work and his political support of Mercer County Executive Robert
Prunetti.
These newly discovered e-mails were written shortly after Edwards alleges
that Plumeri tried to bribe him to hire Markowitz to replace Bennett.
However, nowhere in any of these e-mails does Edwards refer to the
alleged bribe. Moreover, neither
Plumeri nor Markowitz is even mentioned in any of these e-mails.
·
FINDINGS
OF FACT
a.
There is no independent evidence to
corroborate Jon Edwards’ allegations.
b. Samuel J. Plumeri categorically denies the bribe allegation.
c. Joshua Markowitz categorically denies the bribe allegation.
d. A review of Markowitz’ donations does not reveal a $10,000 contribution. Furthermore, there is no history of donations that would make such a large contribution, or a series of smaller contributions totaling $10,000, inconspicuous.
e. Edwards wavered regarding facts crucial to the investigation.
i. Edwards initially claimed that he was not receptive to replacing John Bennett as the township attorney for the year 2002. However, when Edwards was confronted with his belatedly discovered June 3, 2002 e-mail, he admitted that he was originally receptive to the possibility of replacing Bennett.
ii. During the initial interview, Edwards suggested that Mike Kahme had, without solicitation from or consultation with Edwards, provided Edwards with the names of possible replacements for Bennett. Edwards later admitted, after the discovery of his June 3, 2002 e-mail, that he had asked Kahme to provide him with the names of attorneys who could replace Bennett.
iii. Edwards consistently maintained that Bennett was a highly qualified municipal attorney and had done outstanding work for Hopewell Township. In fact, as late as the February 6, 2003 committee meeting during which Edwin Schmierer was hired to replace Bennett, Edwards heaped praise on Bennett and suggested that the township was making a big mistake by not retaining Bennett. However, after confronting Edwards with his June 3, 2002 e-mail, in which Edwards expressed an interest in a possible change, Edwards admitted for the first time that Bennett’s work had been unsatisfactory in several respects – and that is why he considered replacing him in 2002.
iv. The e-mails dated December 21, 2001, through January 29, 2002, further contradict Edwards’ initial statement to this office that he was not receptive to replacing Bennett as township attorney for the year 2002. The e-mails also reveal that Edwards and other committee members felt that Bennett’s legal representation was unsatisfactory in some respects, and objected to Bennett’s support of Robert Prunetti, contradicting Edwards’ original assertion that Bennett had capably served the township and that Edwards was not receptive to replacing Bennett.
f.
Edwards’ present recollection
regarding the circumstances surrounding the telephone conversation during which
the bribe allegedly was made by Samuel J. Plumeri is poor.
i.
Edwards stated during the initial
interview that he could NOT swear to what was specifically said by Plumeri or
himself during the conversation.
ii.
Edwards claims he placed the telephone
call to Plumeri from his kitchen phone after looking up Plumeri’s home number
in the phone book. However,
Plumeri’s home telephone number is unlisted and Edwards’ telephone bill does
not reflect that a call was placed to Plumeri’s home telephone number.
· Edwards presented varying details of the telephone conversation between himself and Plumeri in his three e-mails of June 3, 2002, January 17, 2003, and January 20, 2003.
· Edwards does not mention the alleged bribe or Plumeri or Markowitz in the series of e-mails dated December 21, 2001, through January 29, 2002. These e-mails were written shortly after the alleged bribe offer.
· When John Bennett was replaced as township attorney in 2003, thereby creating an opportunity for a bribe to occur, Markowitz was accorded nothing more than a courtesy interview and was not given any consideration for the position.
·
CONCLUSION
The
allegations are without corroboration and are unsubstantiated.
Neither further investigation nor presentation to a grand jury is
warranted. No violation of N.J.S.A.
2C:27-2 or any other criminal law was committed by either Samuel J. Plumeri or
Joshua Markowitz.
Prosecutor
Giaquinto stated:
·
Serious
accusations of corruption such as these, made more than a year after the alleged
occurrence, present difficulties in timely rooting out criminal conduct or
clearing the innocent. Still, the
public should take heart that there is more than enough information in this case
to render our conclusion.