Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
lSUMMONS I NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT: In the name of the people of the State of Michigan you are notified:
1. You are being sued.
2. YOU HAVE 21 DAYS after receiving this summons to file a written answer with the court and serve a copy on the other party
ortake other lawful action with the court(28 days if you were served by mail or you were served outside this state). (MCR2.111 rcn
3. If you do not answer or take other action within the time allowed, ju ment a nt e
a inst you for the relief demanded
in the complaint.
Issued
J COMPLAINT J !nstruction: The following is information that is required to be in the caption ofevery complaint and is to be completed
by the plaintiff. Actual a/legations and the claim for relief must be stated on additional complaint pages and attached to this form.
Family Division Cases
0
There isno other pending or resolved action within the jurisdiction of the family division of circuit court involving the family or family
members of the parties. ·
0 An action within the jurisdiction of the family division of the circuit court involving the family or family members of the parties has
been previously filed in · Court.
The action O remains Dis no longer pending. The docket number and the judge assigned to the action are:
!Docket no. !Judge Bar no.
!VENUE I
Plaintiff(s) residence (include city, township, or village) Defendant(s) residence (include city, township, or village)
MACOMB,MI. MACOMB,MI.
Place where action arose or business conducted
1 MACOMB, MI.
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Frank A Cusumano, Jr. and for his Complaint states as
follows:
THE PARTIES
Macomb, County of Macomb, State of Michigan and is a putative holder of the public
4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to MGR 3.306(0) and MCL 600.1621.
COMMON ALLEGATIONS
1
5. Macomb Township is a unit of local government organized under the laws of the
6. Beginning in November 2000 and through the present date, BUCCI was/is a sitting
government of the Township of Macomb, and a "Trustee" (MCL 41.1 b(f)) and "officer"
(MCL 41.1 b(a)) under the Constitution and laws of the State of Michigan.
8. On or about January 1, 2017 BUCCI assumed office for a four (4) year term as
putative Trustee of Macomb Township said current term ending under Michigan
10. The acts complained against BUCCI which are the subject of this Complaint arose
Township and those acts (accepting bribes) rendered him ineligible to assume office
11. On or about April 30, 2018, Plaintiff sent a request to the Michigan Attorney General
(MAG) in which Plaintiff requested that MAG commence an action in quo warranto to
remove Bucci from the public office of Trustee of Macomb Township. Exhibit A-
12. Plaintiff has confirmed with the MAG that the April 30, 2018 request was received.
2
13. The MAG has not formally or informally responded to Plaintiff's April 30, 2018 reques
and has otherwise refused to act on the request to initiate quo warranto against
BUCCI.
14. Plaintiff seeks an order of quo warranto removing BUCCI from office pursuant to MC
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
15. Between August 2014 and November 5, 2014, Dino Bucci did corruptly solicit and
demand for BUCCl's personal benefit and did accept, $66,024 in cash from
after conspiring with Sorrentino to have Sorrentino bid $254,500 on the concrete
paving job for Macomb Township Town Hall wherein Sorrentino had agreed to accept
$181,055 for his part in the transaction and, after payment to a third party who
actually performed the work, did bargain and pay the differential of $66,024 in cash to
BUCCI and withheld $7,000 balance to cover Sorrentine's anticipated tax liability
16. Sorrentino acted as a shill and a conduit in the paying of the difference between the
actual cost of the project and the amounts paid by the taxpayers of Macomb
Township to BUCCI, however, the transactions itself was a "bribe" as that term is
defined under Michigan law because the BUCCI vote on the contract was influenced
3
17. Sorrentino was promised future Macomb Township contract work by BUCCI which
Board of Trustees.
18. Sorrentino admitted his individual involvement in the money laundering as the fundin
vehicle to pay the SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE I in the U.S. District Court. Exhibit B
(ED Mich).
19. Sorrentino attested that on or about November 5, 2014, Sorrentino paid BUCCI the
$66,024 in cash, which was withdrawn from the Sorrentino checking account and
broken down into six (6) separate checks for $9,429 and one check for $9450 that
20. According to Sorrentino in his Rule 11 guilty plea bargain, the checks were written
and cashed for less than $10,000 in order to disguise the transaction and evade
750.118.
22. Payment of the SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE I took place in 2014 while BUCCI held
23. On or about March 2015 Bucci did solicit and accept for his personal benefit, at least
$30,000 in cash from Sorrentino, which was a bribe of a public officer after conspiring
with Sorrentino to bid $264,703 for the Macomb Township fire department concrete
paving project wherein Sorrentino had agreed to accept $30,000 less for his role in
4
that repaving project than that paid by Macomb Township, and the work being
24. Sorrentino was acting as a shill and conduit in the paying of the bribe to BUCCI in
25. Sorrentino paid BUCCI the $30,000 in cash, which was a bribe as defined at MCL
750.118. Id.
26. Payment of the SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE II took place while BUCCI held the
27. On or about July 2015, BUCCI acted in concert and did conspire with Macomb
Township Trustee Clifford Freitas ("FREITAS") to obtain and then unlawfully disclose
related to the waste removal contract to Charles (Chuck) Rizzo, then an employee
28. FREITAS, who worked for RIZZO, did not serve on the Macomb Township Board of
Trustees sub-committee which dealt with the waste removal contract, so he enlisted
as a co-conspirator BUCCI who did have access to the confidential and sensitive bid
information.
29. FREITAS approached RIZZO and offered his assistance to procure the award in
favor of Rizzo for payment of money. Exhibit C- USA v. Clifford Freitas, 2016-cr-
30. As a direct result of the unlawful actions of FREITAS and BUCCI acting in concert
with him, RIZZO was awarded the contract which had a value of over $17 million
dollars.
5
31. The factual basis of the Rule 11 guilty plea by FREITAS was confirmed by him in
open Court and under oath on June 1, 2017. Exhibit D- USA v. Clifford Freitas,
33.At his sentencing on July 31, 2018, FREITAS identified, either directly or through his
criminal defense counsel, that BUCCI was the Trustee who had procured and fed
6
FREITAS the confidential bid information to aid RIZZO and FREITAS in the rigging
the bidding process in RIZZO's favor and utilized the corruptly obtained confidential
information to tailor the RIZZO bid amount to corruptly obtain the Macomb Township
34. FREITAS approached BUCCI about obtaining the confidential and sensitive waste
removal bid details, and BUCCI knew FREITAS was a payroll employee of RIZZO at
the time.
35. Despite actual knowledge of the conflict of interest and breach of fiduciary duties
involved by both FREITAS and BUCCI, BUCCI supplied the confidential and
36. BUCCI and FREITAS concealed the scheme described above from the Macomb
Township Board of Trustees and the public and the scheme is hereinafter referenced
37. FREITAS, for his part, accepted a $7500 bribe, as defined at MCL 750. 118, which
generated after the CFO of RIZZO protested that the cash payment to an elected
official Macomb Township Trustee under the circumstances was improper, and the
CFO questioned the legality of not withholding payroll taxes as required under the
38. On July 31, 2018 at sentencing in USA v. Clifford Freitas, 2016-cr-20732, ED Mich.,
FREITAS again admitted his role in the FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE and the
-
involvement of BUCCI stating, either directly or through his criminal defense counsel,
that FREITAS had been "groomed" by BUCCI and other elected officials in the
the Macomb Township Board of Trustees into voting to allow assessment of the
waste removal fees charged by RIZZO to residents onto the township tax bills,
payment by the township, and subjecting those unable to make timely payment to
township liens and possible foreclosure, and thus providing a substantial saving to
40. The RIZZO waste removal fee assessment policy never came to fruition as the
government.
41. BUCCI, in his role of public officer - Trustee of Macomb Township, voted "YES" on
the RIZZO waste removal contract knowing that said vote was directly influenced by
his acting in concert with FREITAS to rig the bidding process in favor of RIZZO under
42. The BUCCI "YES" votes on the RIZZO waste removal contract are recorded in the
minutes of the Macomb Township Board of Trustees' meetings and the subject "YES"
43. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as alleged
herein.
45. MCL 750.118 does not states that the public office holder shall forfeit his office "upon
conviction" under the statute (a felony) and the plain meaning of the statute indicates
that a public office holder found to have accepted a bribe has forfeited his/her office
46. In the context of this quo warranto action, Plaintiff need only prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that BUCCI accepted or conspired with one or more
47. BUCCI forfeited his office as Trustee when he accepted the SORRENTINO-BUCCI I
48. BUCCI was disqualified from holding any public office in Michigan, including that of
49. BUCCI should be removed from office upon a finding by a preponderance of the
2014) occurred and rendered the public office holder, BUCCI, as ineligible to assume
any public office after the SORRENTINO-BUCCI I bribe, including his current term
and from which BUCCI was forever disqualified from holding since acceptance of the
SORRENTINO-BUCCI I bribe.
50. On November 8, 2016, BUCCI was ineligible to assume office, and ineligible hold the
office of public of Macomb Township Trustee because he had "forfeited" the right to
hold office when taking and participating in the corrupt "pay to play" bribes from
9
Sorrentino in 2014 and 2015 and, additionally, conspired and aided and abetted the
51. BUCCI has wrongfully usurped the office of Macomb Township Trustee, wrongfully
holds that public office and should be removed by order of this Court.
52. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as alleged
herein.
53. BUCCI forfeited his office as Trustee when he accepted the SORRENTINO-BUCCI II
54. BUCCI was forever disqualified from holding any public office, including Macomb
2015.
55. BUCCI should be removed from office upon a finding by a preponderance of the
occurred and rendered the public office holder, BUCCI, as ineligible to assume any
public office after the SORRENTINO-BUCCI II bribe, including his current term that
56. On January 1, 2017, BUCCI was ineligible to assume public office, and ineligible hold
the office of public of Macomb Township Trustee because he had "forfeited" the right
57. BUCCI has wrongfully usurped the office of Macomb Township Trustee, wrongfully
holds that public office and should be removed by order of this Court.
10
COUNT Ill - QUO WARRANTO
CONCERT OF ACTION
FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE (2015)
58. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as alleged
herein.
59. FREITAS and BUCCI at all times pertinent hereto owed a fiduciary duty to the
60. The actions of FREITAS and BUCCI breached their fiduciary duties as Trustees of
61. The BUCCI and FREITAS actions were concerted to accomplish the breach of their
fiduciary duties owed as Trustees of Macomb Township and concerted to breach and
62. The intent and purpose of the FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE was to, and did,
influence BUCCl's vote(s) as Trustee of Macomb Township and was to, and did,
RIZZO.
63. The bribe by RIZZO to FREITAS was a "bribe" as defined at MCL 750.118 as the
ends of the enterprise that was intended and designed to influence BUCCl's "vote,
opinion or judgment shall be given in any particular manner, or upon a particular side
of any question, cause or proceeding, which is or may be by law brought before him
in his official capacity," to wit: the Macomb Township waste removal contract. MCL
750. 118.
64. The intent and purpose of the procurement and disclosure of the confidential and
sensitive bid information to RIZZO by FREITAS and BUCCI, acting in concert with
11
FREITAS, was to deliberately, unlawfully and corruptly aid RIZZO in the competitive
bidding process and achieve the common design and purpose of the successful
award of a waste hauling contract with Macomb Township in favor of RIZZO through
the corruption of the Trustees and public officers, FREITAS and BUCCI.
65. The actions by FREITAS and BUCCI were, by express agreement or tacit
MCL 750.118, and did breach the fiduciary duties of both FREITAS and BUCCI.
66. The actions of BUCCI under the FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE facilitated the
corrupt quid pro quo bribery scheme between FREITAS and RIZZO for the
67. BUCCI is jointly and severally liable and should be removed from office because the
bribe paid to FREITAS by RIZZO is imputed to BUCCI under the theory of concert of
action.
68. BUCCI caused the harm complained herein, bribery of a public officer - Trustee
FREITAS, and as a result BUCCI should be removed from the office of Macomb
Township Trustee as having forfeited his office, because but for the supplying of the
confidential information by BUCCI, FREITAS would not have been abl.e to deliver on
his corrupt promise to corruptly supply the confidential information, and could not
69. In the alternative, if BUCCI caused no harm himself to Macomb Township, BUCCI is
liable for quo warranto removal for the harm (bribery of a public officer) caused by his
fellow Trustee FREITAS because BUCCI, FREITAS and RIZZO all acted jointly.
Cousineau v. Ford Motor Co., 140 Mich.App. 19, 33; 363 N.W.2d 721, (1985).
12
70. BUCCI has wrongfully usurped the office of Macomb Township Trustee, wrongfully
holds that public office and should be removed by order of this Court.
71. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as alleged
herein.
72. BUCCI is liable and should be removed from office because he aided and abetted
and conspired with RIZZO and FREITAS to facilitate the corrupt bribe paid by RIZZO
to FREITAS.
73. The $7500 bribe between RIZZO and FREITAS is imputed to BUCCI as an aider and
abettor and co-conspirator of RIZZO and FREITAS who acted jointly with BUCCI to
accomplish the ends of the conspiracy, to wit: the corrupt acquisition of the Macomb
74. BUCCI has wrongfully usurped the office of Macomb Township Trustee, wrongfully
holds that public office and should be removed by order of this Court.
75. BUCCI forfeited his office as Trustee when he participated in the FREITAS/RIZZO-
76. BUCCI was forever disqualified from holding any public office, including Macomb
Township Trustee, when he aided and abetted and acted as a co-conspirator in the
WHEREFORE, in light of the serious nature of these issues, Plaintiff requests this
Court to expedite all scheduling matters and entertain a show cause hearing at the
conclusion of a 60-day period of discovery and thereafter grant Plaintiff an Order of quo
13
warranto determining that BUCCI, is not properly holding the office of Macomb Township
Trustee, removing BUCCI from the office of Macomb Township Trustee, declaring the
office of Macomb Township Trustee vacant and to grant Plaintiff further relief as this
Respectfully submitted,
14
~
' I
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit A - Letter to MAG 04/30/2018.
Exhibit B-10/03/2017- Rule 11 Plea, USA v. Christopher Sorrentino, Case No. 2:17-
Exhibit D - USA v. Clifford Freitas, 2016-cr-20732, ED Mich., 06/01/2017, Tr. p.24, II. 11-15.
15
EXHIBIT A
QUO WARRANTO
COMPLAINT
Frank A. Cusumano, Jr.
Attorney and Counselor at Law·
16188 Jenny Drive
Macomb, Ml. 48042-2250
(586) 453-4084
Fax: {586) 722-2072
cusumanolaw@gmail.com
William D. Schuette
G. Mennen Williams Building, 7th floor
525 W. Ottawa St.
P.O. Box 30212
Lansing, Ml 48909
RE: Dino Bucci's Forfeit of Macomb Township Trustee Office (MCL 750.118) and Complaint for
Quo Warranto
This letter and the requested relief is submitted on behalf of Michael O'Lear individually and
Frank A. Cusumano, Jr. individually.
On or about November 15, 2017, Macomb Township Trustee Dino Bucci (Bucci) was indicted for a
variety of felony violations under the United States Code. A copy of the indictment is attached as
Exhibit A. The factual predicate of the indictment sets forth facts supporting violation of MCL
750.174 and MCL 750.118.
Public officer accepting bribe-Any executive, legislative or judicial officer who shall
corruptly accept any gift or gratuity, or any promise to make any gift, or to do any act
beneficial to such officer, under an agreement, or with an understanding that his vote,
opinion or judgment shall he given in any particuli:lr manner, or upon a particular side of
any.question, cause or proceeding, which is or may be by law brought before him in his
official capacity, or that in such capacity ... shall forfeit hi506ice, and be forever
disqualified.. to -·hold
. .
any .public office,. trust or appointment under the constitution or laws
of this state, fil!Q.shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprJsonment in the state
prison not more. than 10 years, or by fine of not more than 5,000 dollars.
2jPaie
William D. Schuette
Michigan Attorney General
April 30, 2018
Because MCL 750.118 distinguishes between the civil consequence of engaging in the proscribed
behavior, e.g. accepting the bribe(s), "and'; the criminal 'Consequence, a felony punish able by up
to ten years in ~tate prison, and a fine, I submit that there is sufficient evidence to institute quo
warranto proceedin&.s. to remove Bucci since by operation of law he /{forfeited" the office when
acceptrng the bribe(s) on or about 20:J.4-2015, b.efore Bucci's candidacy in the November 8, 2016
election. Moreover, since Bucci was. '1disqualified from holding any public office" from the date of
the forfeiture onwards, ·his candidacy for his current te'rm was void ab initio. Thus, Bucci once
elected· is now wrongfully holding the public office of Macomb Township Trustee and shouf d be
removed.
Bucci continues to draw a paycheck and benefits from Macomb Township despite not having
attended a single meeting of the Macomb Township Board of Trustees since ahd including
November 20, 2017. The Macomb Township Board has been urged by the citizenry to initiate
action against Bucci to recover sums rightfully due and owing to Macomb Township, however,
the majority of Trustees campaigned and ran wlth Bucci as a slate of candidates in the 2016
electron cycle, sharing signage and comingling funds and in kind. contributions.
Please consider this letter a formal request for quo warranto proceedings against Bucci to
remove him from office under MCR 3.306 and MCL 600.4501. Since, Michael J. O'Lear received
the next highest number of votes, it is requested that O'Lear be named under MCR 3.306(C} as
the person rightfully entitled to the vacated office in any quo warranto action. Exhibit B.
I remain,
enclosure
EXHIBIT A
r"\ ;0
2:17-cr-20775-TL _·APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg l uf 28 Pg ID 1
VIOLATIONS:
18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy)
D-1 DINO BUCCI, 18 U.S.C. § 666(a) (Bribery and Theft)
18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Extortion)
18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail :Fraud)
Defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a) (Money Laundering)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _!
INDICTMENT
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
At all times relevant to this Indictment, all of the following was true:
("Macomb County"), both local government entities that received federal assistance
I
r-"\ ,~
2:17-cr-20775-TG...... ~APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 2 ui 28 Pg ID 2
2016.
had a contract with Macomb Township to perform garbage collection and hauling
County.
2
0 r'\
2:17-cr-20775-TG,= APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 3 ur 28 Pg ID 3
14. All "Overt Acts" referred to in this indictment occurred in the Eastern
District of Michigan.
COUNT ONE
D-1 DINOBUCCI
THE CONSPIRACY
alleged and incorporated by reference in Count One as if fully set forth herein.
unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with
3
~\
demand for the benefit of any person, and accept and agree to accept, tens of
tickets to fundraising events, tickets to golf outings, and gift cards for DINO BUCCI
and his co-conspirators, with the intent to influence and reward DINO BUCCI and
other public officials conspiring with DINO BUCCI in connection with a business,
involving $5,000 or more, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
666(a).
3. It was part of the conspiracy that DINO BUCCI directed his co-
conspirators to provide tens of thousands of dollars in cash, personal checks, and gift
4. It was further part of the conspiracy that DINO BUCCI directed Paulin
for BUCCI and BUCCl's political allies, such as golf outings and dinners, in
exchange for BUCCI and his co-conspirators causing these individuals and entities
4
0 /\.
2:17-cr-20775-TL. ....-APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 5 uf 28 Pg ID 5
to be awarded consulting work and contracts with Macomb Township and Macomb
County.
BUCCI and his co-conspirators, including cash, personal checks (including for the
purchase of tickets to political fundraising events), and gift cards, in order to obtain
consulting work and contracts with Macomb Township and Macomb County.
OVERT ACTS
In furtherance of the unlawful conspiracy, and to effect its objectives, the co-
A that he would like Engineering Firm A to give him $3,500 in cash. Employees of
Engineering Firm A decided to give the cash to DINO BUCCI because they
Engineering Firm A.
BUCCI in order to purchase tickets to political fundraising events. Modj knew that
5
,0 //\
2:17-cr-20775-TGi.,,-APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 6 u, 28 Pg ID 6
he had to pay the money in order to "get in the game" and get engineering work with
Macomb Township and Macomb County. Eventually, during the course of the
conspiracy, Modi and Engineering Firm Cpaid tens of thousands of do11ars to DINO
10. In or about June of 2012, that same individual, with the consent of
reimbursed that individual for the $500 cash payment to DINO BUCCI, by giving
12. In or about the winter of 2014, the individual who had formerly worked
employee of Engineering Firm B, who had been seeking to obtain field service work
13. In or about the spring of 2014, at the Macomb Township Hall, DINO
In making the demand for $10,000 in cash, DINO BUCCI stated: "Let's see if
6
------ - · - · --· -
0, 0.
2:17-cr-20775-TG._ APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 7 0, 28 Pg ID 7
they're going to play or not." The employee refused to give $10,000 in cash to
DINO BUCCI.
14. In response to the employee's refusal, DINO BUCCI shut down all
the employee from any dealings with DINO BUCCI, Macomb Township, or
Macomb County.
contributions.
17. In the spring of 2014, in exchange for the money paid by Engineering
Firm B, DINO BUCCI allowed Engineering Firm B to restart its business with
Macomb Township.
who had previously worked for Engineering Firm A, provided DINO BUCCI with
a personal check for $2,000 made out to an individual whose name was provided by
BUCCI.
at DINO BUCCI's request, gave BUCCI a $500 gift card for Partridge Creek Mall.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 666(a).
7
0 0
2:17-cr-20775-1 J-APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg o of 28 Pg ID 8
COUNTTWO
(18 U.S.C. §§ 371 & 666(a)- Conspiracy to commit Bribery and Theft
Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds)
THE CONSPIRACY
alleged and incorporated by reference in Count Two as if fully set forth herein.
BUCCI and Christopher Sorrentino, did unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly com-
bine, conspire, confederate, and agree, with each other and with other individuals,
to:
a. corruptly solicit and demand for the benefit of any person, and accept and
agree to accept, at least $96,000 in cash for DINO BUCCI, with the intent
and
b. embezzle, steal and obtain by fraud, over $96,000 belonging to· Macomb
Township,
8
. ---··-·-····· ... -·-·-·--
r",., ;I',
2:17-cr-20775-T~~.:APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 9 v1 28 Pg ID 9
Sorrentino to submit bids for Macomb Township paving projects, including concrete
contractor") to do the paving work at the township hall and township fire station for
amounts less than Sorrentino's bids. DINO BUCCI made it appear that the paving
had never met the paving contractor and was unaware of the paving contractor's
existence until the contractor began work on the township hall project.
once Sorrentino was paid the higher bid amount by the township.
that amounted to the difference between the cost of the paving work and the
excessive bid by Sorrentino, less money for Sorrentino to pay a portion of his income
taxes.
9
!~ /",,.
efforts to embezzle money from Macomb Township. For this private work, DINO
Sorrentino was late in giving BUCCI his portion of the profit on the private work,
BUCCI used his public position to block or delay Sorrentino from receiving
OVERT ACTS
In furtherance of the unlawful conspiracy, and to effect its objectives, the co-
contractor to repave the township hall parking lot for the price of $181,055.
Sorrentino submitted a bid of $257,800 for the township hall parking lot repaving
project.
people to cash a series of checks in amounts under $10,000 in order to obtain $66,000
10
0 !",
2:17-cr-20775-TL LAPP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 1.L of 28 Pg ID 11
Michigan, where Sorrentino gave BUCCI a bag containing $66,000 in cash. During
the meeting, DINO BUCCI yelled at Sorrentino for not being secretive enough in
14. In or about March 2015, DINO BUCCI arranged for the paving
contractor to repave the township fire department parking lot for the price of
$210,000.
submitted a bid of $264,703 for the township fire department parking lot repaving
project.
17. In or about November 2015, and in the months soon thereafter, at the
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 666(a).
11
,0 (~
2:17-cr-20775-TGB·- ..PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 12 0, 28 Pg ID 12
COUNT THREE
Division, defendant DINO BUCCI did corruptly solicit and demand for the benefit
of any person, and accept and agree to accept, $66,000 in cash from Christopher
COUNT FOUR
D-1 DINOBUCCI
than $66,000, which was owned by and under the care, custody and control of
Macomb Township.
12
0 /\
2:17-cr-20775-TGEi ..PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 13\.,, 28 Pg ID 13
COUNT FIVE
Division, defendant DINO BUCCI, knowing that the property involved represented
the proceeds from some form of specified unlawful activity, as defined in Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1956(c)(7), that is, bribery and theft, felonies under Title
18, United States Code, Section 666, did himself and did aid and abet others,
interstate commerce which involved the proceeds of said unlawful activity, with the
intent to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of
13
(', .r-\
2:17-cr-20775-TG._ -\PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 14 1..lf 28 Pg ID 14
COUNT SIX
Division, defendant DINO BUCCI did corruptly solicit and demand for the benefit
of any person, and accept and agree to accept, at least $30,000 in cash from
COUNT SEVEN
Division, defendant DINO BUCCI did embezzle, steal, and obtain by fraud, more
than $30,000, which was owned by and under the care, custody and control of
Macomb Township.
14
0 ~1
COUNT EIGHT
alleged and incorporated by reference in Count Eight as if fully set forth herein.
devised and executed a scheme to defraud and to obtain money from Macomb
Township and its insurance company by means of false and fraudulent material
tiles in the Macomb Township Hall, located at 54111 Broughton Road, Macomb
money from the township. At the direction of DINO BUCCI, Developer A invoiced
Macomb Township $14,483.70 for the ceiling tile repairs, which were performed by
another company at the cost of only $2,400. After Developer A was overpaid for the
tile repairs by the township, and at the direction of DINO BUCCI, Developer A,
15
01 ,~
2:17-cr-20775-TGEh---F'P Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 16 u• 28 Pg ID 16
form of cash, free plumbing work, and free kitchen cabinets installed in BUCCl's
home.
COUNT NINE
knowing that the property involved represented the proceeds from some form of
specified unlawful activity:, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section
1956(c)(7), that is, mail fraud, a felony under Title 18, United States Code, Section
1341, did himself and did aid and abet others in knowingly, intentionally, and
affecting interstate commerce which involved the proceeds of said unlawful activity,
16
~ i~
I '
with the intent to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and
COUNT TEN
In and between 2011 and 2016, in the Eastern District of Michigan, defendant
DINO BUCCI did knowingly and unlawfully obstruct, delay and affect interstate
$10,000 each calendar year, with the consent of Developer A, induced by wrongful
COUNT ELEVEN
17
,0 /\
2:17-cr-20775-TGb. \'pp Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 18 uf 28 Pg ID 18
BUCCI did knowingly and unlawfully attempt to obstruct, delay and affect interstate
the sale of Macomb Township property, with the consent of Developer A, induced
by wrongful use of fear of economic harm and under color of official right.
COUNT TWELVE
DINO BUCCI did knowingly and unlawfully obstruct, delay and affect interstate
A, induced by wrongful use of fear of economic harm and under color of official
right.
18
.0 I\
2:17-cr-20775-TG .... APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 1~ uf 28 Pg ID 19
2. For each of the calendar years identified below, in the Eastern District
of Michigan, Southern Division, defendant DINO BUCCI did embezzle, steal; and
obtain by fraud, property valued at $5,000 or more each year, which was owned by
and under the care, custody, and control of Macomb County. In each calendar year
identified below, that is, 2013 through 2016, DINO BUCCI converted to his
would make plow his and his relatives and friends' driveways on snowy
properties.
19
r~ 0
2:17-cr-20775-TGL. ,PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 20 vf 28 Pg ID 20
time who was tasked with driving DINO BUCCl's child to school each
BUCCI and his favored political candidates, and remove campaign signs
ofBUCCI's rivals.
BUCCI's associate.
threatened to punish Macomb County employees if they did not do these personal
errands and tasks for BUCCI. For example, DINO BUCCI threatened to send
employees home for weeks without pay, to take away the use of county vehicles, to
workstation with a twenty-four hour shift if they did not perform tasks to benefit
20
······ ·-·--····-··--------------------------------------
(~ (~.·-·
COUNT SEVENTEEN
D-1 DINOBUCCI
THE CONSPIRACY
alleged and incorporated by reference in Count Seventeen as if fully set forth herein.
willfully, and knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree, with Developer
B, to corruptly solicit and demand for the benefit of any person, and accept and agree
to accept, over $10,000 for DINO BUCCI, with the intent to influence and reward
Developer B whenever Macomb Township had property in the township that it could
sell to Developer B.
4. It was further part of the conspiracy that DINO BUCCI would use his
could purchase property owned by the township, including BUCCI voting in favor
5. It was further part of the conspiracy that Developer B would pay DINO
Macomb Township.
OVERT ACTS
In furtherance of the unlawful conspiracy, and to effect its objectives, the co-
22
,f\ \.
2:17-cr-20775-TG.._ APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 2~ of 28 Pg ID 23
facilitate the sale of those parcels of land to Developer B, including voting in favor
Developer B.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 666(a).
COUNT EIGHTEEN
Division, defendant DINO BUCCI did corruptly solicit and demand for the benefit
23
r\ ,0
2:17-cr-20775-TGi.. .-\PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 24 uf 28 Pg ID 24
of any person, and accept and agree to accept, a check for $7,500 from Charles B.
Rizzo Environmental Services' trash bill for township residents to be placed on the
water bill of the township, and he was aided and abetted by Clifford Freitas.
FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS
Indictment are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of
alleging forfeitures pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C)
Section 666(a), in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, as set forth
in Counts 1, 2, 17, and 18 of this Indictment, the defendant, DINO BUCCI~ shall
forfeit to the United States of America, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,
Section 98I(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 246I(c), any
traceable to said violations. The United States shall also seek the imposition of a
24
~ I'\,
2:17-cr-20775-TGl {PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 25 vi 28 Pg ID 25
Code, Section 666(a) set forth in Counts 3, 4, 6, 7, 13-16, and 18 of this Indictment,
the defendant, DINO BUCCI, shall forfeit to the United States of America, pursuant
to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States
Code, Section 2461 (c), any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived
from gross proceeds traceable to the offenses. The United States shall also seek the
Code, Section 1341 set forth in Count 8 of this Indictment, the defendant, DINO
BUCCI, shall forfeit to the United States of America, pursuant to Title 18, United
States Code, Section 981 (a)(l )(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461 (c),
any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from gross proceeds
traceable to the offense. The United States shall also seek the imposition of a
value of gross proceeds obtained as a result of the defendant's violations of Title 18,
25
f\ ;\
2:17-cr-20775-TG, ),PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 26 vf 28 Pg ID 26
Code, Section 1951 set forth in Counts 10, 11, and 12 of this Indictment, the
defendant, DINO BUCCI, shall forfeit to the United States of America, pursuant to
Title 18, United States Code, Section 98l(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code,
Section 2461 (c), any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from
gross proceeds traceable to the offenses. The United States shall also seek the
Code, Section 1956 set forth in Counts 5 and 9 of this Indictment, the defendant,
DINO BUCCI, shall forfeit to the United States of America, pursuant to Title 18,
United States Code, Section 98I(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section
2461 (c), any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from gross
proceeds traceable to the offenses. The United States shall also seek the imposition
the value of gross proceeds obtained as a result of the defendant's violations of Title
of the defendant:
26
(\ ~'
2:17-cr-20775-TGL. {PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 27 v, 28 Pg ID 27
without difficulty,
pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by TitJe
DANIELL. LEMISCH
Acting United States Attorney
27
~. /'--,
2:17-cr-20775-Tl ~APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 2b of 28 Pg ID 28
United States District Court Criminal Case Cover Sheet Case Number
Eastern District of Michigan
NOTE: Jt is the responsibility of the Assistant U.S. Attorney signing this form to complete it accurately in all respects.
This may be a companion case based upon LCrR 57.10 (b)(4)': Judge Assigned: Robert H. Cleland
Please take notice that the below listed Assistant United States Attorney is the attorney of record for
the above captioned case.
1 Companion cases are matters in which it appears that (1) substantially similar evidence will be offered at trial, or (2) the same
or related parties are present, and the cases arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Cases may be companion cases
even though one of them may have already been te~minated. 5/16
(
I
'\
EXHIBIT B
/'\
4/30/2018 Macomb Co. - Election Results - Macomb Twp 1, ~~,ee
Race List I Race Summary I Race Details I Race Details (Printer FriendlY.).
*Please Note: A precinct will not display in the percent of precincts reporting until
both election day and AV (absentee) results are recorded for that precinct.
1/1
http://clerk.macombgov.org/sites/default/files/content/government/clerk/electionresults/2016/November16/233.html
EXHIBIT B
QUO WARRANTO
COMPLAINT
~ 0
Case 2:17-cr-20568-Rl'-IC(}w ECF No. 12 filed 10/03/17 P~~JID.19 Page 1 of 24
1. Guilty Plea
A. Count of Conviction
The defendant witl enter a plea of guilty to Count One of the Information,
B. Elements of Offense
(3) The defendant purposefully structured the transaction with the intent to
The following facts are a sufficient and accurate basis for defendant's guilty
plea:
In 2014, the defendant owned a company that could perform work for
proposal for a job re-paving the parking lot of the Macomb Township Hall. The
defendant prepared a proposal that quoted a price of $254,500 for the job to be
conducted by his company, and he gave it to the elected official. About two weeks
later, the elected official called the defendant and told him to immediately appear at
the parking lot of the town hall to start work on the job. After the defendant appeared
at the township hall parking lot that evening, he found that another company, which
was unknown to the defendant, was already tearing up the old parking lot for purposes
-2-
~. ~
Case 2:17-cr-20568-RH( 1SW ECF No. 12 filed 10/03/17 f--JelD.21 Page 3 of 24
of re-paving it. Other than taking some photographs of the work, the defendant and
his company subsequently did none of the work removing the old asphalt parking lot
and replacing it with it a new concrete parking lot. Instead, the other company
After the parking lot job was completed by the other company, the defendant
received a check from Macomb Township for $254,500. The elected official
instructed the defendant to send a check for $181,055 to the other company which
had actually performed the work. In addition, the elected official instructed the
defendant to give the elected official the remaining money, at least $73,000, to the
official in cash. When the defendant objected to not receiving any portion .of the
$254,500 because the defendant would be responsible for paying taxes on the money
he was paid by Macomb Township, the elected official told the defendant that he
could keep approximately $7,000 in order to pay a portion of the taxes. Finally, the
elected official informed the defendant that the elected official would direct some
future work for the township to the defendant and his company in compensation.
As instructed, the defendant sent a check for $181,055 to the other company.
On November 5, 2014, the defendant then wrote the following series of seven checks
each made out to "cash": (1) $9,429, (2) $9,429, (3) $9,429, (4) $9,429, (5) $9,429,
(6) $9,429, and (7) $9,450. The total amount of the checks was for $66,024. On
November 5, 2014, the defendant caused all seven checks to be cashed at his bank in
-3-
~ ~
f ' , \
Case 2:17-cr-20568-RHC· :W ECF No. 12 filed 10/03/17 Pa::.-'lD.22 Page 4 of 24
the Eastern District of Michigan. The defendant wrote the checks for amounts under
$10,000 in order to evade the currency transaction reporting requirement at his bank.
The defendant also was seeking to conceal the fact that he was gathering a large
amount of cash to give to the elected official. After the checks were cashed and the
defendant had collected $66,024 in cash, the defendant delivered all of the cash to the
elected official in the building housing the Macomb County Department of Public
In 2015, the defendant was "awarded" another job by the elected official to re-
pave a parking lot at the Macomb Township fire station. Again, the other company
performed all of the work on the job. In November 2015, the defendant's company
was paid $264,703 for this second job by Macomb Township. Again, as instructed
by the elected official, the defendant paid the second company for performing all of
the work. In addition, the defendant gave at least $30,000 in cash to the elected
official. Again, the defendant was allowed to keep a portion of the money paid by
Macomb Township in order to pay taxes. In the end, the defendant made no money
on the two jobs for Macomb Township, but he instead lost money because of the
taxes that he had to pay on the two jobs "awarded" by the elected official of Macomb
Township.
-4-
Case 2:17-cr-20568-RHcrw ECF No. 12 filed 10/03/17 PCio.23 Page 5 of 24
2. Sentencing Guidelines
A. Standard of Proof
parties recommend that the defendant's guideline range is 10-16 months, as set forth
2. that the offense level should be higher because, after pleading guilty,
cnme,
and if any such finding results in a guideline range higher than 10-16 months, the
higher guideline range becomes the agreed range. The Court is not bound by this
recommendation concerning the guideline range, and the defendant understands that
he will have no right to withdraw his guilty plea if the Court does not follow this
armed career criminal, or a repeat and dangerous sex offender as defined under the
-5-
0, f",
Case 2:17-cr-20568-RHC-1 IN ECF No. 12 filed 10/03/17 Pa~_{D.24 Page 6 of 24
sentencing guidelines or other federal law, and that finding is not already reflected in
the attached worksheets, this paragraph does not authorize a corresponding increase
Neither party may take a position concerning the applicable guidelines that is
different than any position of that party as reflected in the attached worksheets, except
3. Sentence
The Court will impose a sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553, and in doing
A. Imprisonment
B. Supervised Release
A term of supervised release follows the term of imprisonment. The Court must
impose a term of supervised release, which in this case is up to three years. The
to any term of imprisonment that results from any later revocation of supervised
release.
-6-
0, (',
Case 2:17-cr-20568-RHC, JW ECF No. 12 filed 10/03/17 Pc..~.;; 1·0 .25 p a ge 7 of 24
C. Special Assessment
The defendant will pay a special assessment of $100 at the time of sentencing.
D. Fine
The parties agree that the fine will be no more than the maximum amount of
$250,000.
E. Restitution
The Court shall order restitution to every identifiable victim of the defendant's
offense.
If the Court allows the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea for a "fair and just
reason" pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. I l(d)(2)(B), the defendant waives his rights
under Fed. R. Evid. 410, and the government may use his guilty plea, any statement
made under oath at the change-of-plea hearing, and the factual basis statement in this
5. Other Charges
If the Court accepts this agreement, the government will not bring any
-7-
0 /'I
Case 2:17-cr-20568-RHC-1 W ECF No. 12 filed 10/03/17 Pa\,-jD.26 Page 8 of 24
has no right to withdraw his guilty plea and the parties have no right to withdraw
7. Appeal Waiver
The defendant waives any right he may have to appeal his conviction on any
grounds. If the defendant's sentence of imprisonment does not exceed 16 months, the
defendant also waives any right he may have to appeal his sentence on any grounds.
This waiver does not bar filing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in
court.
pursuant to this agreement is vacated, the Court shall, on the government's request,
reinstate any charges that were dismissed as part of this agreement. If additional
charges are filed against defendant within six months after the date the order vacating
defendant's conviction or allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea becomes final,
which charges relate directly or indirectly to the conduct underlying the guilty plea
or to any conduct reflected in the attached worksheets, defendant waives his right to
-8-
~- ,/\.
Case 2:17-cr-20568-RHC~. .W ECF No. 12 filed 10/03/17 Pas .,D.27 Page 9 of 24
challenge the additional charges on the ground that they were not filed in a timely
manner, including any claim that they were filed after the limitations period expired.
Unless otherwise indicated, this agreement does not bind any government
agency except the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of
Michigan.
the complete agreement between the parties. This agreement supersedes all other
concerning the subject matter of this plea agreement that were made at any time
before the guilty plea is entered in court. Thus, no oral or written promises made by
the government to defendant or to the attorney for the defendant at any time before
defendant pleads guilty are binding except to the extent they have been explicitly
plea agreement does not supersede or abrogate the terms of any such prior written
agreement.
-9-
r, ~;
Case 2:17-cr-20568-RH .~SW ECF No. 12 filed 10/03/17 f-'agelD.28 Page 10 of 24
This agreement also does not prevent any civil or administrative actions against
defendant, or any forfeiture claim against any property, by the United States or any
other party.
This plea offer expires unless it has been received, fully signed, in the Office
of the United States Attorney by 5:00 P.M. on June 30, 2017. The government
reserves the right to modify or revoke this offer at any time before defendant pleads
guilty.
DANIELL. LEMISCH
-
Assistant United States Attorney Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Public Corruption Unit
- IO -
0 ~'
Case 2:17-cr-20568-RHC-R J ECF No. 12 filed 10/03/17 Pag .. J.29 Page 11 of 24
By signing below, defendant acknowledges that he has read (or been read) this entire
dacmnent, understands it, and agrees to its terms. He also acknowledges that he is
satisfied with his attorney's advice and representation. Defendant agrees that he has
had a full and complete opportunity to confer with his lawyer, and has had all of his
questions answered by hi lawyer.
ARTHUR WEISS
Attorney for Defendant Defendant
/0--3-/7
Dated Dated
- 11 -
EXHIBIT C
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-RSW ECF No. 52 filed 06/01/17 PagelD.288 Page 1 of 23
0
Z..-3
~
~
~ IL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICIDGAN
~r JUN 1- 2017
SOUTHERN DIVISION CLERK'S OFFICE
DETROIT
1. Guilty Plea
A. Count of Conviction
The defendant will enter a plea of guilty to Count One of the Third Superseding
B. Elements of Offense
The following are the elements of the crime of Conspiracy to Commit Federal
Program Bribery:
0.
The following facts are a sufficient and accurate basis for defendant's guilty
plea:
of Michigan. In 2015, the defendant agreed to accept and did corruptly accept
A") which was seeking, and then secured, a contract with Macomb Township. The
-2-
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-RSW ECF No. 52 filed 06/01/17 PagelD.290 Page 3 of 23
contract was worth approximately $17 million dollars. The defendant accepted the
In 2015, besides being a Macomb Township Trustee, the defendant also had a
job with Company A. The defendant had been employed with Company A since
accepting a position in June 2014. In July 2015, Macomb Township put out a request
for proposal (''RFP") for a contract. Soon after the RFP was put out, the defendant
approached the executive at Company A. The defendant told the executive that he
would use his official position with the township in order to help Company A obtain
the contract with Company A, but that he (the defendant) wanted to be paid for his
assistance. The executive offered, and the defendant accepted, a promise to pay the
During the process leading up to the award of the contract, the defendant
supplied inside information concerning the bid process to the executive in order to
assist Company A in winning the contract. Ultimately, the defendant recused himself
from actually voting as a trustee on the award of the contract because of his
A. The executive then paid the defendant the promised $7,500 by adding $7,500 to
in federal assistance.
-3-
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-RSW ECF No. 52 filed 06/01/17 PagelD.291 Page 4 of 23
2. Sentencing Guidelines
A. Standard of Proof
parties recommend that the defendant's guideline range is 30 months, as set forth on
2. that the offense level should be higher because, after pleading guilty,
crime,
and if any such finding results in a guideline range higher than 30 months, the higher
guideline range becomes the agreed range. The Court is not bound by this
recommendation concerning the guideline range, and the defendant understands that
he will have no right to withdraw his guilty plea if the Court does not follow this
armed career criminal, or a repeat and dangerous sex offender as defined under the
-4-
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-RSW ECF No. 52 tiled 06/01/17 PagelD.292 Page 5 of 23
sentencing guidelines or other federal law, and that finding is not already reflected in
the attached worksheets, this paragraph does not authorize a corresponding increase
Neither party may take a position concerning the applicable guidelines that is
different than any position of that party as reflected in the attached worksheets, except
3. Sentence
The Court will impose a sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553, and in doing
A. Imprisonment
B. Supervised Release
A term of supervised release follows the term ofimprisonment. The Court must
impose a term of supervised release, which in this case is up to three years. The
to any term of imprisonment that results from any later revocation of supervised
release.
C. Special Assessment
The defendant will pay a special assessment of $100 at the time of sentencing.
-5-
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-RSW ECF No. 52 filed 06/01/17 PagelD.293 Page 6 of 23
D. Fine
The parties agree that the fine will be no more than the maximum amount of
$250,000.
E. Restitution
The Court shall order restitution to every identifiable victim of the defendant's
offense.
If the Court allows the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea for a "fair and just
reason" pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. ll(d)(2)(B), the defendant waives his rights
under Fed. R Evid. 410, and the government may use his guilty plea, any statement
made under oath at the change-of-plea hearing, and the factual basis statement in this
5. Other Charges
If the .Court accepts this agreement, the government will not bring any
has no right to withdraw his guilty plea and the parties have no right to withdraw
-6-
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-RSW ECF No. 52 filed 06/01/17 PagelD.294 Page 7 of 23
7. Appeal Waiver
The defendant waives any right he may have to appeal his conviction on any
grounds. If the defendant's sentence of imprisonment does not exceed 30 months, the
defendant also waives any right he may have to appeal his sentence on any grounds.
This waiver does not bar filing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in
court.
pursuant to this agreement is vacated, the Court shall, on the government's request,
reinstate any charges that were dismissed as part of this agreement. If additional
charges are filed against defendant within six months after the date the order vacating
defendant's conviction or allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea becomes final,
which charges relate directly or indirectly to the conduct underlying the guilty plea
or to any conduct reflected in the attached worksheets, defendant waives his right to
challenge the additional charges on the ground that they were not filed in a timely
manner, including any claim that they were filed after the limitations period expired.
-7-
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-RSW ECF No. 52 filed 06/01/17 PagelD.295 Page 8 of 23
Unless otherwise indicated, this agreement does not bind any government
I
agency except the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of
Michigan.
the complete agreement between the parties. This agreement supersedes all other
concerning the subject matter of this plea agreement that were made at any time
before the guilty plea is entered in court. Thus, no oral or written promises made by
the government to defendant or to the attorney for the defendant at any time before
defendant pleads guilty are binding except to the extent they have l;,een explicitly
plea agreement does not supersede or abrogate the terms of any such prior written
agreement.
This agreement also does not prevent any civil or administrative actions against
defendant, or any forfeiture claim against any property, by the United States or any
other party.
-8-
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-RSW ECF No. 52 filed 06/01/17 PagelD.296 Page 9 of 23
This plea offer expires unless it has been received, fully signed, in the Office
of the United States Attorney by 5:00 P.M. on June 1, 2017. The government reserves
the right to modify or revoke this offer at any time before defendant pleads guilty.
DANIEL L. LEMISCH
-9-
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-RSW ECF No. 52 filed 06/01/17 PagelD.297 -Page 10 of 23
By signing below, defendant acknowledges that he has read (or been read) this entire
document, understands it, and agrees to its terms. He also acknowledges that he is
satisfied with his attorney's advice and representation. Defendant agrees that he has
had a full and complete opportunity to confer with his lawyer, and has had all of his
questions answered by his lawyer.
DANIE C~RE~
Attorne Defendant
Dated
{{-/- /7
Dated
- 10 -
~
I '
EXHIBIT D
QUO WARRANTO
COMPLAINT
0 /\
'r
---..
8 PLEA HEARING
20
24
25
01 ~'
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-k5W ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 Pa~elD.634 Page 2 of 30
2
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
Hearing
3
4 Defendant Sworn 3
9 Exhibits:
(None Offered.)
10
11
12 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 30
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(~ /'-,
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-rs:SW ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 Pct\:;lelD.635 Page 3 of 30
PLEA HEARING - 6/1/2017
3
2 June 1, 2017
3 1:41 p.m.
4 * * *
5 (Call to Order of the Court; all parties present.)
2 THE COURT: And Mr. Freitas, you are under oath and
5 that --
17 used against you. And even if I were to find that you had
20 upon you.
6 point forward that you think you don't understand or you need
8 free, raise your hand, tell me you need some assistance in that
24 defendant's competence?
12 the proceeding?
21 with him?
24 case against you and the evidence and the significance of it?
2 his advice and that you've been well informed and well
3 prepared?
5 THE COURT: That won't be the last time that I ask you
13 plea of not guilty or to have one entered for you, and to have
]_ 5 that?
4 if there are any such witnesses, that you might want to present
6 well?
10 that, again, only you can make. No one can force you to plead
11 guilty, no one can prohibit -- I'm sorry. No one can force you
14 understand that?
18 acknowledge.
3 not going to complain about it, I'm going to accept it. Do you
4 understand that?
8 You don't get to change your mind tomorrow or next week. It's
16 your promise is sound and solid, and that promise means you
18 actual sentence that you did receive, whatever it may turn out
3 charge you, probably would charge you with more and different
4 offenses. I'm guessing about that, but that's often the case.
7 an Information, yes?
11 Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 and Section 666(a) is
23 maximum.
15 attorneys.
20 with respect to that and the terms and the conditions of the
21 plea agreement.
1 what role you played, how serious it was, how important your
13 somewhere between the low end and the high end or they may
7 calculated for some reason that I'll later find out about.
13 understand, sir?
16 about sentencing?
3 have, they are strictly with the Government. And by, when I
5 sir?
9 record?
16 as follows:
25 on the Court. And neither of the parties can withdraw from the
14 prison.
24 the parties.
1 as stated?
9 that's the other question. Have you had ample time to do all
10 of that, right?
13 Freitas?
19 situation?
22 the terms and conditions, you want to embrace these terms and
23 conditions?
7 that?
11 that as well?
9 that correctly?
7 summarized here. I've heard, maybe not each and every tiny
17 his advice?
23 decision?
20 government.
8 forth?
10 ·THE DEFENIJANT ;
12
14 $tateroent, sir?
18 company, correct?
10
11
21 sounded like quotation marks around the word "loan." They were
3 THE .DEFl::;15JDANT t ..
11
12
13
14
15
16 .TBE GQQRT: And some t;he J5ids had J:)eEoln unsealed and
17
18
19
20
21
23
4 officials apparently?
10
11 its financial
12
13
17
18
19
23
7 been within your personal you don't have to know that, but
14 so as well?
22 here in my discussion with you and with Mr. Garon's help. You
20 defendant?
24 Court is in recess.
2 * * *
3
4 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
12
13
15
16 s/ Christin E. Russell
Christin E. Russell
17 RMR, CRR, FCRR, CSR
Federal Official Court Reporter
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25