October 2, 2007

CASE NO. EI-73-6887 and EI-85-0004

Florida Department of Law Enforcement
OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE INVESTIGATIONS

Former Representative Mark Foley
United States House of Representatives
INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY
INVESTIGATIVE PREDICATE
On September 30, 2006, Governor Jeb Bush directed FDLE Commissioner Gerald Bailey to
conduct an inquiry into allegations that former United States House Representative Mark Foley
engaged in inappropriate communications with former U.S. House of Representative Pages.
On October 1, 2006, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, sent
a letter to Governor Bush requesting FDLE to conduct an investigation of Foley. Speaker
Hastert advised that Foley had resigned his position of United States Representative on
September 29, 2006, amid allegations that he had sexually explicit communications with House
Pages.
Speaker Hastert also requested FDLE to determine who had specific knowledge of the content of
the alleged inappropriate communications and why this information was not turned over to law
enforcement or prosecutors immediately. Speaker Hastert indicated that he was also requesting
the United States Department of Justice to investigate whether any federal laws may have been
violated.
On October 2, 2006, Governor Bush responded to Speaker Hastert that FDLE had begun an
inquiry into the allegations against Foley. Additionally, Governor Bush advised Speaker Hastert
that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was the lead agency investigating the matter and
that FDLE would work in close coordination with the FBI.

INVESTIGATIVE NARRATIVE
On September 29, 2006, ABC News released transcripts of instant messages that Foley allegedly
sent to a former House Page in February 2003. The instant messages contained sexually explicit
content and implied that Foley was in Pensacola, Florida at the time of the communication. ABC
News also purported that Foley used the America Online (AOL) Instant Messenger screen name
"MAF54" to communicate with former House Pages. Further investigation by FDLE revealed
the AOL account "MAF54" was linked to the MySpace.com account #43489677.
Page 1 of 7

October 2, 2007

CASE NO. EI-73-6887 and EI-85-0004

Based on the information made public and as reported to FDLE, an investigation into whether
there was a criminal violation of Florida law, including but not limited to, Sections 847.0135 and
847.0138, Florida Statutes, was begun. Florida State Statute 847.0135, known as the “Computer
Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act” addresses illegal conduct involving adults,
minors and computer pornography. Florida State Statute 847.0138 addresses illegal conduct
involving the transmission of material harmful to minors by electronic device or equipment.
On October 4, 2006, FDLE faxed preservation letters to AOL and MySpace.com in attempt to
preserve any communications from AOL Instant Messenger screen name “MAF54” and
Myspace.com account #43489677 from destruction. FDLE also faxed a preservation letter to
AOL for the account "Lolakana223" which news outlets purported to be the account of a House
Page who had received instant messages from Foley. Additionally, FDLE subpoenaed AOL on
October 5, 2006, to identify the subscribers of AOL screen name "Lolakana223” and “MAF54.”
AOL records identified the subscriber of "Lolakana223" as Ed Edmund of Carlsbad, California,
and the subscriber of “MAF54” as Mark Foley of Washington, DC. Ed Edmund was
subsequently identified as the father of former House Page Jordan Edmund. AOL does not
capture Instant Messenger transcripts and retains Instant Messenger Internet Protocol connection
logs for 10 days. Therefore IP logs and chat transcripts were not available for 2003
communications.

INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEWS
House Page Interviews
On October 24, 2006, FDLE investigators interviewed former House Page Jordan Edmund in
Oklahoma City. Edmund confirmed that subsequent to his completion of the House Page
program, he began communicating with Foley via instant message. Additionally, Edmund stated
that he used the AOL screen name "Lolakana223" and Foley used the AOL screen name
“MAF54” when communicating. Edmund stated that he had contact with Foley via Instant
message approximately three-four times per week.
Edmund stated that the emails and the initial instant messages he received from Foley were
casual questions such as what Edmund was doing, how was school etc. According to Edmund,
over time the content of the instant messages started to become more sexual in nature. Edmund
explained that the majority of sexually explicit messages he exchanged with Foley were sent
when Edmund was a senior in high school and seventeen years of age. Edmund stated that he
did not recall any emails from Foley that were sexual in nature, only instant messages.
Edmund stated that he could not recall any specific sexual communications with Foley.
However, Edmund did recall that Foley would often ask questions regarding Edmund’s sexual
experience, sexual interests, masturbation, genitals, and whether Edmund had a girlfriend.
Edmund stated that he and Foley never engaged in any sexual activity or exchanged any
pornographic images over the computer/internet. Edmund stated that he advised Foley on
several occasions that he was not eighteen years old and that he felt uncomfortable talking about
explicit sexual acts.

Page 2 of 7

October 2, 2007

CASE NO. EI-73-6887 and EI-85-0004

Edmund stated that he attended a Page Reunion in Washington D.C. around the weekend of
February 15-16, 2003. Prior to attending the Page Reunion, Edmund and Foley had
communicated via instant messaging. Foley requested Edmund meet him at his Washington
D.C. apartment when Edmund arrived in town for the Page Reunion. Foley indicated to Edmund
that he would give Edmund a “blow job” during their meeting.
Edmund stated that he did not meet Foley during the weekend he attended the Page Reunion.
Edmund stated that it was his understanding that Foley was not in town during the weekend of
the Page Reunion due to a heavy snowstorm. Edmund stated that he had decided not to meet
with Foley that weekend as he had become concerned about the nature of their communications
and did not want to engage in any sexual activity with Foley.
Edmund stated that during February of 2003 he stopped instant messaging Foley on a regular
basis. Edmund stated that he informed Foley that he wanted their relationship to be more
professional. It was Edmund’s intention to stop having the sexually explicit communications
with Foley. However, Edmund wanted to stay in contact with Foley for assistance in obtaining
references, employment etc. Edmund stated that Foley quit sending him instant messages on a
regular basis after Edmund stopped instant messaging Foley.
Edmund stated that he communicated with several other Pages after they left the Page program,
via email and instant messaging. Edmund stated that during the Page reunion, several other
Pages told him that they too had similar “sexual” communications with Foley, via email and/or
instant messaging. Edmund identified the Pages as Dominic Rupprecht, John Eunice, Jason
Greene and Matthew Arthur. These four individuals were interviewed by the FBI and the FBI
did not indicate that anything in the interviews suggested behavior of interest to Florida
investigators. Since Florida jurisdiction would be established only if the communications
originated from, or were received in, Florida, the Florida nexus would be very limited. None of
the four pages lived in Florida, and no evidence has been developed by FDLE or related to FDLE
by the FBI that suggests any communications from Foley to the four other pages originated in
Florida.
Edmund stated that he confided in other Pages as to the nature/content of his communications
with Foley. Edmund stated that it was his understanding from speaking with other former Pages
that Foley contacted them via email and instant messages after they left the Page Program as
well.
Edmund stated that he communicated with the other former Pages via telephone or instant
messaging. Edmund stated that he “cut and pasted” text from previous instant message
communications with Foley and forwarded the text to several of the other former Pages.
Edmund stated that he had saved the instant messages on his computer hard drive, but the
computer subsequently crashed, resulting in the messages being lost. Edmund identified those
Pages as Dominic Rupprecht and Matthew Loraditch. Edmund stated that he sent the text to the
other Pages in an instant message or as an attachment to an instant message.
Edmund stated that as best he could recall, the other former Pages also sent him via instant
messages, excerpts of their previous communications with Foley. Although Edmund could not
remember the specific details of the communications, he recalled that they were sexual in nature.
Edmund specifically recalled Dominic Rupprecht forwarding him text of his communication(s)
Page 3 of 7

October 2, 2007

CASE NO. EI-73-6887 and EI-85-0004

with Foley. Edmund advised the investigators that he was confident that his computer crashing
had permanently destroyed the messages and he no longer had access to any of the sexually
explicit communications he had with Foley.
On July 27, 2007, FDLE received correspondence from legal counsel representing Edmund. The
correspondence expressed Edmund’s acknowledgement that there was no inappropriate physical
relationship between him and Foley. Additionally, the correspondence stated that Edmund was
in favor of a resolution in the Foley matter that did not include criminal prosecution.
Additional Page Interviews
On October 19, 2006, at the request of FDLE, House of Representatives, Deputy General
Counsel Kerry Kircher forwarded the names and contact information of former House Pages that
were from the State of Florida and who were willing to have their contact information provided
to FDLE. FDLE conducted telephone interviews of seventeen individuals who had served as
House Pages from Florida during various time periods between 2000 and 2006. None of the
seventeen individuals reported any inappropriate activity, conversations or internet
communications involving Foley. FDLE also attempted to make contact with an additional
seven former Pages, without success.

FORENSIC ANALYSIS
Foley’s Computers
According to Steve Martin, former District Manager of Foley’s Congressional District,
subsequent to Foley’s resignation from the United States House of Representatives on September
29, 2006, the Clerk of the House took custody of computer hard drives from Foley’s Washington
D.C. office and two Florida district offices. Pursuant to the Rules of the House, the “Office
Computer Equipment” belongs to Foley and he was provided a copy of the data on each of the
computer hard drives. Additionally, the Chief Administrator of the House retained back up tapes
of emails sent to and from Foley’s Washington D.C. office dating back to July 2005.
During the course of this investigation, FDLE made several attempts (both verbally and in
writing) to obtain access to the computer documents (emails etc.) and computer equipment that
the United States Government provided Foley during his time in office. On July 26, 2007, FDLE
received a written response from the U.S. House of Representatives Office of the General
Counsel that pursuant to the Speech and Debate Clause, of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. House
could not provide FDLE access to the equipment or back up tapes without authorization from
Foley.
The response letter confirmed that the Clerk of the House had taken custody of Foley’s computer
from his Washington D.C. office, the hard drives from two district office computers, a noncurrent office server, back up tapes for the relevant House servers for the 14 days prior to Foley’s
resignation, and “certain” back up tapes from late July 2005. The letter identified that Foley’s
attorneys had searched the data from the computers and reported the results to the United States
Department of Justice (DOJ). The letter also identified that a search of the back up tapes was
Page 4 of 7

October 2, 2007

CASE NO. EI-73-6887 and EI-85-0004

performed for DOJ and that no sexually explicit graphic attachments or embedded images were
found. Additionally, the letter identified that DOJ is currently formulating search terms to be
applied to the July 2005 back up tapes. Finally, the letter suggested that FDLE contact Foley’s
legal counsel and request access to view the mirrored copy of the data that was provided to
Foley.
The Speech and Debate Clause is found in Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution, which
provides in part: "The Senators and Representatives...shall in all cases, except Treason, Felony
and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session...and
in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they
shall not be questioned in any other place." The courts, as recently as August 2007 (in a D.C.
District Court of Appeals ruling on the Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson/FBI
Investigation) held that the privilege protects Congress members from the government's use of
seized documents related to their Congressional duties.
Since the Clerk of the House makes no determination between what is Congressional and what is
personal on the mirrored image, it fell upon Foley to make it. Foley did apparently make such a
determination and his attorney’s voluntarily worked with the DOJ to search the data and report
the finds of the search to DOJ. Despite attempts to work out a similar arrangement with Foley’s
attorneys, FDLE was unable to do so and therefore, FDLE has not reviewed any portion of the
contents of Foley’s computer.
However, the DOJ/FBI and FDLE agreed that should the efforts of either entity produce leads
warranting investigation by the other, that the investigators would be advised that specific
investigative efforts were warranted. FDLE has received no indication from the DOJ/FBI that
there is anything of interest in the “non-Congressional” portion of Foley’s computers that would
constitute a violation of Florida law. The absence of an indication that there is anything of
interest to Florida implies there is no “lead” or other “evidence” of significance to the state
investigation on the mirrored computer information data.
In view of the inability of FDLE to obtain voluntary access to the Foley data, the only alternative
left would be to seize the information under authority of a search warrant. However, there were
no facts revealed in the investigation that would support probable cause to believe the nonprivileged portion of Foley’s computer contains evidence of a crime, no “specificity” of what
that evidence would be, and there was ultimately no basis upon which to seek a search warrant.
Since what would be sought was stored electronic communication, by law the materials could
not be subpoenaed. (Even if subpoenaed, Florida’s automatic use immunity granted to
testimonial evidence would have complicated whether any information of interest could have
been of value for prosecution.)

Page 5 of 7

October 2, 2007

CASE NO. EI-73-6887 and EI-85-0004

INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS
The primary focus of this investigation surrounded sexually explicit communications in the form
of instant messages that were allegedly sent by Foley, from Pensacola, Florida on or around
February 2-3, 2003, to former House Page Jordan Edmunds. There were no other allegations or
information developed during this investigation that indicated Foley had engaged in sexually
explicit communications (via email, instant messages etc.) or sexual activity with former House
Pages or other individuals living in the State of Florida who were under the age of eighteen at the
time of the communications or activity.
During the course of the investigation, Edmund identified four other pages that might have
received similar communications of a sexual nature from Foley. These four individuals were
interviewed by the FBI and the FBI did not indicate that anything in the interviews suggested
behavior of interest to Florida investigators. Since Florida jurisdiction would be established only
if the communications originated from, or were received in, Florida, the potential Florida nexus
would be very limited. None of the four Pages lived in Florida, and there is no evidence that has
been developed by FDLE or related to FDLE by the FBI that suggests any communications from
Foley to the four other pages originated while Foley was in Florida.
Analysis of Foley’s U.S. House of Representatives calendar, U.S. House of Representatives
Payment Vouchers and other information indicated that Foley was in the State of Florida on
February 2-3, 2003, attending various events in and around Escambia County. Additionally,
Edmund recalled that Foley indicated in the instant message in question, that Foley was allegedly
communicating from Pensacola, Florida. However, Edmund could not recall specific details of
the communication that occurred on that date or provide a copy of the instant message
transcripts. Attempts were made to obtain transcripts of the instant messages from America
Online, but it was learned that the instant message transcripts were, by AOL policy, not retained.
FDLE was not permitted by the U.S. House of Representatives to review any computer
equipment or emails that Foley used while in office. However, the U.S. House of
Representatives suggested that FDLE contact Foley’s legal counsel and request to view a copy of
the data that was provided to Foley. FDLE met with David Roth, attorney for Foley, in an
attempt to gain voluntary access to Foley’s computer equipment and files. Additionally, FDLE
requested that Foley voluntarily allow FDLE to view non-congressional work papers/data from
Foley’s computers. Roth advised that it was not in Foley’s best interest to comply with FDLE’s
request and voluntary access was not granted. Finally, Jordan Edmund advised FDLE through
his legal counsel that he did not wish to see Foley criminally prosecuted.
ABC News released transcripts of instant messages that Foley allegedly sent to Edmund in
February 2003. However, AOL does not retain transcripts of instant messages, Edmund was
unable to recover instant messages that he allegedly saved on his computer and Foley chose not
to allow FDLE access to his computers to search for any saved instant message communications.
Therefore, FDLE was unable to obtain authenticated transcripts of the alleged explicit instant
messages.
FDLE presented Director Maureen Horkan of the Office of Attorney General, Child Predator
Page 6 of 7

October 2, 2007

CASE NO. EI-73-6887 and EI-85-0004

Cyber Crime Unit, a summary of this investigation for review. Director Horkan is an attorney
and very well versed in prosecutions based on computer evidence. Director Horkan advised that
because the allegations against Foley were isolated specifically to a single jurisdiction, Escambia
County, the proper venue for prosecutorial review would be the State Attorney for the First
Judicial Circuit of Florida. However, Director Horkan stated that upon review of the facts of the
investigation, it appeared that any criminal allegations against Foley would not be prosecutable
due to the statute of limitations.
The two primary criminal violations under review are third degree felonies. The 3-year statute of
limitations ran on those violations in February of 2006. However, it is important to note that
even if the statute of limitations had not run, there would be no prosecutable case. There are no
original records of the “instant messages” received by Edmund. Edmund cannot testify with any
certainty when messages from Foley were sent or whether they originated from Florida. As
confirmed by Director Horkan, criminal violation of F.S. 847.0135 or F.S. 847.0138 cannot be
proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Director Horkan advised that the statute of limitations regarding the alleged inappropriate instant
messages sent from Foley to Edmund on February 2-3, 2003, would have expired on February 23, 2006. Additionally, Director Horkan advised that Florida State Statute 775.15 contains an
exemption for the statute of limitations if the offense was based upon misconduct in office by a
public official. Director Horkan stated that this statute did not apply to the Foley investigation
because the allegations did not involve his official capacity as a United States Representative.
State Attorney William “Bill” Eddins of the First Judicial Circuit of Florida was also provided a
copy of all investigative reports and supporting documentation for review. Upon review, State
Attorney Eddins concluded that based upon the lack of obtainable evidence, there did not appear
to be probable cause that a crime was committed in the First Judicial Circuit of Florida by Foley.
Additionally, State Attorney Eddins concurred with Director Horkan that if probable cause had
been discovered, prosecution would not be possible due to the expiration of the statute of
limitations.
Based upon the findings presented in this investigative summary, no further action by FDLE is
warranted.

Page 7 of 7

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
Investigative Update Print
Case #
EI-85-0004

Inv. Update #
1

Case Name/Description
Restricted Case

Inv. Update Date
07/31/2007

Author
O'Connell, Michael Edward

Brief Description
Meeting with State Wide on 7125107
Investigative Update
On 7/27107, Inspector O'Connell, SAS Mike Phillips and SA Mike Duffey met with State Wide prosecutors Maureen
Horkin and Brian Fernandez at the Attorney General's office in Tallahassee. The purpose of the meeting was an
overview of the Foley case.
It was agreed by all parties that prosecution of this case would be difficult given the iack of admissable physical
evidence and reluetenceof the victim to cooperate.
Ms. Horkin agreed to brief State Attorney Bill Eddins (Pensacola) and to also contact the Attorney General and
update him on the status of the case. SA Duffey will contact the victim's attorney and attempt to obtain a letter
from him that outlines the victim's reluctence to pursue criminal charges.

It was agreed by all parties that FDLE and the AG should cooridnate press releases should the state not prosecute
this matter.

Page 1

of 1

9117120084:29:14 PM

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
Investigative Update Print
Case #
EI-85-0004

Inv. Update #
2

Case Name/Description
Restricted Case

Inv. Update Date
09/19/2007

Author
Mitchell, Mark Sanders

Brief Description
Phone conversation with State Attorney Bill Eddins
Investigative Update
On September 19, 2007, Inspector Mark Mitchell was telephonically contacted by State Attorney (SA) Bill Eddins
regarding the review of the EI-85-0004Investigative Summary. SA Eddins advised that he had reviewed the
Investigative Summary and based upon the facts of the investigation, he declined to proceed with criminal
prosecution of Mark Foley. Specifically, SA Eddins based his decision on the facts that the statute of limitations
had passed on alleged criminal activity in the First Circuit of Florida and investigators had been unsuccessful in
obtaining true copies of instant messages between Foley and House pages.

Page 1

of I

9/17/20084:29:43 PM

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
Investigative Update Print
Case #

Case Name/Description

EI-85-0004

Restricted Case

/nv. Update Date
09/25/2007

Inv. Update #
3
Author
Mitchell, Mark Sanders

Brief Description
Correspondence from Attorney fO"I[• • • • • •
&

Investigative Update
On August 27, 2007, Stephen Jones of the Jones, Oljen, Davis and Nixon Law Firm sent correspondence to FDLE
sPkeciallAdgent Mike Duffey on behalf o f .
'1 lin the correbspondence, Jones addvised that
I had
ac nowe rd that t here was no Inappropnate physlca re allonshlp etween
n Foley. Jones a so
stated tha
&avored a resolution to the investigation without criminal investigation or prosecution.

2

A copy of the letter will be maintained as Investigative Update Related Item number one of this investigative case
file.

Page 1

of 1

91t712008 4:30:02 PM

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
Investigative Update Print
Case #
EI-85-0004

Inv. Update #
4

Case Name/Description
Restricted Case

Inv. Update Date

Author

04/29/2008

Mitchell, Mark Sanders

Brief Description
Investigative Update

Investigative Update
In September of 2007, the Case Inspector reported the completion of all unresolved investigative leads that had
been identified through the course of the investigation with the exception of the issue of gaining unfettered access
to the hard drive/server used by former Representative Foley. The case supervisor directed the case Inspector to
prepare the case for closure and draft an investigative summary documenting the overall efforts to resolve the
criminal issues identified in this case file.
In November of 2007, FDLE received a letter from a Florida Department of Corrections inmate who claimed to
have information related to the criminal investigation of former Representative Foley. FDLE worked with the
inmate's attorney to schedule an interview in January of 2008, and found that the inmate did not have any
information relating to criminal activity by former Representative Foley. The inmate correspondence and interview
were memorialized in the FDLE inmate correspondence case file, EI-73"7501, reports 69 and 73.
The case supervisor SUbsequently learned that FDLE command staff did not want to close the case with the
unresolved issue of access to the hard drive/server and indicated that they would make another attempt to gain
unfettered access to the hard drive/server by requesting assistance from the United States Speaker of the House.
During the months of December through February of 2008, correspondence and telephone calls were exchanged
between FDLE and representatives from the House of Representatives General Counsel's Office in an attempt to
gain unfettered access to the hard drive/server. The exchanges were memorialized in Investigative Reports 13
through 15. FDLE was unable to gain the requested access.
Final determination was made by FDLE command staff that all investigative efforts had been exhausted. Case
files were reviewed and portions redacted, pursuant to chapter 119 exemptions, in preparation for public
disclosure/dissemination.

Page 1

of 1

9117/20084:30:24 PM

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
Investigative Update Print
Case #

Case Name/Description

EI-85-0004

Restricted Case

Inv. Update #
5

Inv. Update Date

Author

08/11/2008

Mitchell, Mark Sanders

BriefDescription
Information provided to State Attorney's Office

Investigative Update
On May 29, 2008, Chief Inspector Mark Perez provided information to Chief Assistant State Attorney Paul Zacks
(Fifteenth Judicial Circuit) via facsimile. The information provided to Chief Zacks had been provided to FDLE by
Florida Department of Corrections Inmate Hector Rosa and documented in FDLE case number EI-73"7501. Chief
Inspector Perez requested that Chief Zacks review the information provided by Rosa and determine if the
information warranted further investigation.
Later on May 29, 2008, Chief Zacks telephonically contacted Chief Inspector Perez and advised that after
reviewing the information, he had identified no criminal activity that would warrant further investigation.
Additionally, Chief Zacks stated that even if a criminal predicate had been established, the activity reported by
Rosa allegedly occurred in t997, and therefore statutes of limitations would have expired.
On August 8, 2008, Inspector Mark Mitchell made contact with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ)
regarding the status of the DOJ investigation. Inspector Mitchell was advised that the DOJ had concluded the
investigation on July 30, 2008.

Page 1

of 1

9/17/20084:30:37 PM

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
Administrative Log Print
.

Case #
EI-85-0004

Author
Lawson, Travis Lee

Admin Log #
1

Case Name/Description
Restricted Case
Admin Log Date
12/21/2006

Brief Description
Information Provided to ASWP Maureen Horkan on December 20, 2006
Narrative
On Wednesday, December 20,2006, Inspector Lawsonforwarded to ASWP Maureen Horkan a copy of all
Investigative Reports under FDLE Case Number EI-73-6887 and Investigative Reports 1-5 in FDLE case number
EI-85-0004. Inspector Lawson also included a copy of the. FEll's summary, copies of the Instant Messages
between Foley and former Congressional Page
nd a synopsis of the investigation as of
December 20th. The information was forwarded via Airborne (DHL) Express ref # 621001200.101 WS:
75768431093

Page 1

of I

911712008 4:39:04 PM

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
Administrative Log Print
Case #
EI-85-0004

Admin Log#
2

Case Name/Description
Restricted Case

Author

Admin Log Date

Mitchell, Mark Sanders

01i24i2008

Brief Description
Telephone contact from Kerry Kircher

Narrative
On January 24, 2008, Chief Inspector Mark Perez was contacted by United States House of Representatives
Deputy General Counsel Kerry Kircher. Kircher contacted Chief Perez as a follow up to January 15, 2008 letter
sent to Chief Perez from Kircher. Kircher wanted to emphasize that the House wanted to cooperate with the FDLE
investigation. However, the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution prohibited the House of
Representatives from providing unfettered aceess to computers possessed by Foley.
Chief Perez emphasized that FDLE understood that the House could not release the computers without
permission of Foley. However, C.hief Perez explained to Kircher that it would be highly unusual for criminal
investigators to allow the subject of an investigation the opportunity to filter information requested by law
enforcement which would determine if criminal activity had occurred. Kircher advised that the only way FDLE
could be provided unfettered access to computers formerly assigned to Foley would be if Foley waived his rights
provided under the Speech and Debate Ctause.
FDLE previously met with David Roth, attorney for Foley, in an attempt to gain voluntary access to Foley's
computer equipment and files, Additionally, FDLE requested that Foley voluntarily allow FDLE to view
non-congressional work papers/data from Foley's computers. Roth advised that it was not in Foley's best interest
to comply with FDLE's request and voluntary access was not granted.

Page 1

of I

9117/20084:39: 15 PM

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
•

General Case Profile Print
Case #
EI-85-0004

Case Name/Description

Case Type

Restricted Case

Major

Case Status

Case Status Reason

Closed

Unfounded - Resolved

Date Opened
10/25/2006

Date Closed
09/12/2008

Case Status Date
09/12/2008

Date Reo-Opened

Case Agent
Lawson, Travis Lee

Region

Office

Executive Investigations

Executive Investigations

Sguad
E

TaskForce

Approval Status

Approval Action By

Flag
Case

Juvenile
Case

Restricted
Case

LeFiles, Robert J.

LeFiles, Robert.J.

No

No

Yes

Case Origin

Spin Off From Case #

Spin-Off Investigation

EI-73-6887

Counties Involved

Investigative Technigues Used

Providing Person

Other FDLE Offices Assisting

Escambia
Out of State
Palm Beach
SI. Lucie

Highlights Selected
Computer Involved
Crimes Against Children

Primary Activity Code

Secondary Activity Codes

Computer Related Crimes

Investigative Focus

Jurisdiction

Violent Crime

Inter-State

Related Cases

Case #

Case Name/Description

Case Agent

EI-73-6887

Restricted

Lawson, Travis Lee

Page 1

of 2

9/17/20084:40:50 PM

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
General Case Profile Print
Case Closing Information
Reason Case Closed

Date Case Closed

Closing Approved Bv

Unfounded - Resolved

09/12/2008

Perez, Mark Matthew

Reg/Admin
Sanctions

Fugitive
Outstanding Retention Review

No

No

No Arrests Made

Victim
Monetary Loss

Economic Impact Description

$0.00

No econmic impact

Retention

Review Date
09/12/2013

Case Closing Synopsis / Outcome
At the conclusion of the investigation into allegations that Former United States Representative Mark Foley had
inappropriate communications with House Pages, this case will be closed with no arrests or prosecution. Due to House of
Representative rules restricting access to Foley's computers, investigators were unable to obtain true transcripts of instant
messages allegedly sent by Foley. Additionally, the only allegation with a nexus to Florida involved instant messages that
were allegedly sent from Foley to a former House Page on February 2-3, 2003. If FDLE would have been successful in
obtaining true copies of the instant messages, prosecution would not have been possible due to the three year statute of
limitations.
At the conclusion of this investigation, an investigative summary was presented to the State Attorney for the First Judicial
Circuit of Florida and the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Florida. Upon review of the summary, both
prosecutorial entities concurred that, based upon the lack of available evidence, prosecution of Foley regarding allegations
wtth a nexus to the State of Florida was not feasible.
Information was received from a Florida Department of Corrections inmate who alleged to have first hand information
regarding Foley having inappropriate contact with unknown persons at his WPB Florida Congressional office. This
information was forwarded to Chief Assistant State Paul Zacks (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit) for review. On May 29, 2008,
Chief Zacks advised that after reviewing the information, he had identified no criminal activity that would warrant further
investigation.
On August 8, 2008, FDLE was notified by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) that their investigation into the
Foley allegations had concluded on July 30, 2008. The DOJ did not provide FDLE with any additional information or
evidence against Foiey to warrant further investigation by FDLE within the State of Florida.
No further action will be taken into this matter and this case will now be deemed closed.

Page 2

of 2

9/17120084:40:50 PM