Score:   1
Docket Number:   ED-PA  2:20-cr-00210
Case Name:   USA v. MYERS
  Press Releases:
PHILADELPHIA – U.S. Attorney William M. McSwain released a video on July 23, 2020, with his remarks concerning the criminal charges against former United States Congressman Michael “Ozzie” Myers. The video is available on the Office website here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/video/us-attorney-william-m-mcswain-announces-indictment-former-congressman-election-fraud. Below are U.S. Attorney McSwain’s remarks, as prepared for delivery.

*****

Good morning. I am here to announce that the U.S. Attorney’s Office has unsealed criminal charges against Michael “Ozzie” Myers, a political consultant and former United States Congressman in Philadelphia. Myers has been charged with eight counts: one count of conspiracy to deprive individuals of their civil rights; one count of conspiring to illegally vote in a federal election; two counts of violating the Travel Act, which forbids the use of any facility in interstate commerce (here, a cell phone) with the intent to promote certain illegal activity (here, bribery); two counts of falsification of records; one count of voting more than once in a federal election; and one count of obstruction of justice.

This prosecution has been a team effort, and before I get into a more detailed description of the allegations, there are several people that I want to recognize and thank. First, from the FBI, Mike Driscoll, who is the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia Field Office, as well as Special Agent Carmen DiMario, who is the lead investigator on the case. I want to thank the Public Integrity Section at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, and specifically Section Chief Corey Amundson, Deputy Chief John Keller, and the Director of the Election Crimes Branch of the Section, Richard Pilger. I also want to thank Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Barrett, who is the Chief of our Public Corruption Unit at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Gibson, who is the lead prosecutor on the case. And finally, I would like to thank the Pennsylvania State Police for their assistance in this investigation. 

Our election system relies on the honesty and the integrity of those involved in the electoral process. If Election Officials are corrupt, the system is corrupt, which creates opportunities for election fraud and for the counting of fake votes. According to the Indictment, the election system in Philadelphia’s 39th Ward, 36th Division was corrupted by Ozzie Myers and his co-conspirators.

Myers held himself out as an effective and successful political operative capable of ensuring his clients' electoral success. Myers allegedly did so by working in a number of ways to exert influence and control over Philadelphia’s 39th Ward. According to the Indictment, Myers distributed cash payments and supported family, friends, and allies for elective office in the 39th Ward, and installed Ward Leaders, Judges of Elections, and Democratic State Committee Persons. Through the alleged scheme, Myers advanced his political and financial interests through fraudulent and corrupt means by engaging in a “ballot stuffing” scheme that enabled him to take credit for the electoral success of his Philadelphia-based clients and preferred candidates. This secured his standing in local party politics that enabled him to control and influence the 39th Ward, and influence the distribution of local patronage jobs.

I would like to take you to the 39th Ward, 36th Division to show you where the action happened. I have two photographs that I am going to share at this point to provide some context about the polling place involved. First, there is a picture of the outside of the polling place, which is adjacent to a bocce ball court. Here is that photo. Then, we go inside the polling place, with a picture of the actual machines on an election day.

As charged, Myers would solicit monetary payments from his clients in the form of cash or checks as “consulting fees.” Myers would then take portions of these funds and make payments to Election Board Officials in return for the officials tampering with the election results. Specifically, Myers gave directions and paid money to Dominick J. Demuro, Judge of Elections in Philadelphia’s 39th Ward, who would illegally add votes for certain Democratic candidates on the primary ballots in 2014, 2015, and 2016. These candidates were individuals running for judicial office whose campaigns had hired Myers, as well as other candidates for various federal, state, and local elective offices who were preferred by Myers for a variety of reasons.

After receiving payments from Myers ranging between $300 to $5,000 per election, Demuro would add fraudulent votes - also known as “ringing up” votes – for Myers’ clients and preferred candidates, thereby diluting the ballots cast by actual voters. Myers would relay instructions to Demuro over a cellphone regarding which candidates Demuro should “ring up” on Election Day. Demuro would add the fraudulent votes by literally standing in the voting booth and voting over and over, as fast as he could, when he thought the coast was clear.

Demuro would then falsely certify the Voting Machine results from the 39th Ward, 36th Division as valid. Myers is also charged with obstruction of justice for instructing Demuro about how best to avoid detection concerning these fraudulent votes. Myers allegedly paid Demuro at specific times to avoid campaign financial reporting requirements, and told Demuro to lie about the reason for those payments if he were ever asked.

These fraudulent votes added up. In May 2014, DeMuro stuffed the ballot box with 27 fraudulent ballots during the primary election. In May 2015, DeMuro padded the ballot box with 40 fraudulent votes; in 2016, it was 46 fraudulent votes. These numbers may sound relatively small, but they made up a significant percentage of the total votes cast at the polling place. In 2014, 118 total ballots were reported in the 36th Division of the 39th Ward. That means that the fraudulent votes accounted for over 22% of the total voting in that Division in 2014. In 2015, the fraud accounted for over 15% of the votes in the Division; in 2016, the fraud accounted for over 17% of the votes. And when it comes to these local elections, these numbers are not insignificant. Local elections can often be decided by hundreds, or at times, dozens of votes. These fraudulent votes had the potential to alter a local election’s final result.

But at the end of the day, the specific number of votes does not really matter. Voting is the cornerstone of our democracy. If only one vote has been illegally rung up or fraudulently stuffed into a ballot box, the integrity of that entire election is undermined. As President Lincoln once said, “Elections belong to the people.” The people. To each and every citizen, who has the right to cast one vote. Elections do not and will never belong to corrupt election officials who attempt to buy elections. Votes are not things to be purchased, and democracy is not for sale.

Demuro, who was charged earlier this year by my Office, has accepted responsibility for his crimes by pleading guilty to all charges and is currently awaiting sentencing. And this election fraud investigation is on-going. My Office is taking every possible step that we can to ensure the integrity of every election in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2020. We will work day and night to make sure that every citizen’s civil rights are protected, whether that is through access to the polls or making every legitimate vote count. If you tamper with anyone’s right to vote or try to fix the results of any election in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, my Office will hold you accountable. If you are a political consultant, Election Official, or work with the polling places in any way, I urge you to do your job honestly and faithfully. That is what the public deserves, it is what democracy demands, and it is what my Office will enforce. Thank you.

PHILADELPHIA – United States Attorney William M. McSwain announced today that former U.S. Congressman Michael “Ozzie” Myers, 77, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has been charged by Indictment with multiple counts, including conspiring to violate voting rights by fraudulently stuffing the ballot boxes for specific Democratic candidates in the 2014, 2015, and 2016 Pennsylvania primary elections, bribery of an election official, falsification of records, voting more than once in federal elections, and obstruction of justice. U.S. Attorney McSwain’s video statement providing additional details about this case is available on the Office website here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/video/us-attorney-william-m-mcswain-announces-indictment-former-congressman-election-fraud.

Specifically, Myers is alleged to have bribed the Judge of Elections for the 39th Ward, 36th Division in South Philadelphia, Domenick J. Demuro, in a fraudulent scheme over several years. Demuro, who was charged separately and pleaded guilty in May 2020, was responsible for overseeing the entire election process and all voter activities of his Division in accord with federal and state election laws.

The voting machines at each polling station, including in the 39th Ward, 36th Division, generate records in the form of a printed receipt documenting the use of each voting machine. This printed receipt, also known as the “results receipt,” shows the vote totals, and the Judge of Elections and other Election Board Officials at each polling place attest to the accuracy of machine results.

Myers is charged with bribing Demuro to illegally add votes for certain candidates of their mutual political party in primary elections. Some of these candidates were individuals running for judicial office whose campaigns had hired Myers, and others were candidates for various federal, state, and local elective offices that Myers favored for a variety of reasons. According to the Indictment, Myers would solicit payments from his clients in the form of cash or checks as “consulting fees,” and then use portions of these funds to pay Demuro and others to tamper with election results.

After receiving payments ranging from between $300 to $5,000 per election from Myers, Demuro would add fraudulent votes on the voting machine – also known as “ringing up” votes – for Myers’ clients and preferred candidates, thereby diluting the value of ballots cast by actual voters. At Myers’ direction, Demuro would add these fraudulent votes to the totals during Election Day, and then would later falsely certify that the voting machine results were accurate. Myers is also accused of directing Demuro to lie to investigators about the circumstances of the bribes and the ballot-stuffing scheme.

“Voting is the cornerstone of our democracy. If only one vote has been illegally rung up or fraudulently stuffed into a ballot box, the integrity of that entire election is undermined,” said U.S. Attorney McSwain. “Votes are not things to be purchased and democracy is not for sale. If you are a political consultant, Election Official, or work with the polling places in any way, I urge you to do your job honestly and faithfully. That is what the public deserves, it is what democracy demands, and it is what my Office will enforce.”

“Free and fair elections are the hallmark of our system of government,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian C. Rabbitt of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “The Department of Justice has zero tolerance for corruption of the electoral process, and we will spare no effort in investigating and prosecuting those who would seek an unfair advantage at the polls by bribing state and local officials responsible for ensuring the fairness of our elections.”

“Transparent and fair elections are integral to the proper functioning of our democracy,” said Michael J. Driscoll, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia Division. “Those who seek to corrupt the vote threaten the public’s trust in the process and must be brought to justice. The FBI is determined to protect the integrity of our electoral system.”

“These charges, announced today by the Justice Department, clearly illustrate allegations of absolute disregard for the sanctity of our electoral system,” said Captain Leo D. Hannon Jr., Director of the Special Investigations Division of the Pennsylvania State Police. “As disheartening as this conduct may be for the voting public in Philadelphia and elsewhere, the citizens we serve should be reassured by the fearless and tireless work of the attorneys, agents, and troopers tasked with the continuation of this active investigation. Particularly in the current atmosphere of impending elections, the Pennsylvania State Police prioritize investigations into allegations of voter fraud and public corruption.”

If convicted, the defendant faces a maximum possible sentence of 90 years in prison and two million dollars in fines.

This case is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with assistance from the Pennsylvania State Police. It is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Eric L. Gibson and Richard C. Pilger, Director of Elections Crimes Branch, Criminal Division, Public Integrity Section, U.S. Department of Justice.                                                                       

An Indictment is an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Lqp1sON4wX45W9PztONpgLYLVBEoyMcSuw96fWQBSk4
  Last Updated: 2024-04-16 02:58:29 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E