Cusumano v. Bucci, Macomb Circuit Case No. 2018-3035-CZ. Complaint For Quo Warranto Filed Complete W - Exs A-D

I
Approved, SCAO Original - Court 2nd copy - Plaintiff

1st copy - Defendant 3rd copy - Return
STATE OF MICHIGAN CASE NO.
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
16TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT SUMMONS AND COMPLAINl' 2018- 3 035 CZ
COUNTY PROBATE
Court address Court telephone no.
40 N. MAIN STREET, MT CLEMENS, MI. 48043
586-469-5120
Plaintiff's name(s), address(es), and telephone no(s). Defendant's narne(s). address(es), and telephone no(s).
Frank A. Cusumano, Jr. P42781 V DINO BUCCI
16188 Jenny Drive 49280 Willowood Drive
Macomb, MI. 48042-2250 Macomb, MI. 48044
T:(586) 453-4084 .
Plaintiffs attorney, bar no., addr1~s. and telephone no.

Frank A. Cusum1mo, Jr. P4278 l
16188 Jenny Drive
Macom!J, MI. 48042-2250
T:(586) 453-4084 F:586-722;2072 cusumanolaw@gmail.co
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
*This summons is invalid unless served on or before its expiration date.

This document must be sealed by the seal of the court.
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.
General Civil Cases

!l] There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as alleged in the complaint.
O A civil action between these parties or other parties arising out of the transaction or occurrence alleged in the complaint has
been previously filed in Court.
The action O remains O is no longer pending. Ttie docket number and the judge assigned to the action are:
!Docket no. I 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.
Date ig ture of attorney/plaintiff

If you require special accommodations to use the court because of a disability or if you require a f eign language interpreter to help
you fully participate in court proceedings, please contact the court immediately to make arrangements.
MC01 (3/08) SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT MCR 2.102(8)(11), MCR 2.104, l\/!CR 2.105, MCR 2.107, MCR 2.113{C)(2)(a). (b), MCR 3.206(A)
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MACOMB
FRANK A. CUSUMANO, JR., Case No. 2018 - ~3S"- CZ

Plaintiff, Hon. ~k<.;;."':> 81tiL!,.Jfff1{'-=.
-vs-
DINO BUCCI,
Defendant.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _!
FRANK A. CUSUMANO, JR P42781
Pro Se Plaintiff - Attorney at Law
16188 Jenny Drive
Macomb, Ml. 48042-2250
(586) 453-4084
Fax (586-722-2072
RECEIVED
Email: cusumanolaw@gmail.com AUG O9 2018
-------------'------------------/
COMPLAINT FOR QUO WARRANTO TO REMOVE DINO BUCCI
FROM THE PUBLIC OFFICE OF TRUSTEE OF MACOMB TOWNSHIP
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Frank A Cusumano, Jr. and for his Complaint states as
follows:
THE PARTIES
1. The Plaintiff, Frank A. Cusumano, Jr. ("CUSUMANO"), is a resident of the Township
of Macomb, County of Macomb, State of Michigan.
2. Defendant, Dino Bucci ("BUCCI"), is an individual and resident of the Township of
Macomb, County of Macomb, State of Michigan and is a putative holder of the public
office known as Trustee of Macomb Township.
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
3. Jurisdiction is vested in this Court pursuant to MCR 3.306(A)(2).
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
State of Michigan which is governed under MCL 41.2 et seq.
6. Beginning in November 2000 and through the present date, BUCCI was/is a sitting
member of the Macomb Township Board of Trustees, the legislative branch of
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.
7. On or about November 8, 2016, BUCCI, was re~elected to the public office of
Macomb Township Trustee.
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
Election Law on or about January 1, 2021.
9. Before November 8, 2016 BUCCI accepted "bribes," more specifically alleged
hereinafter, as the term "bribe" is defined at MCL 750.118
10. The acts complained against BUCCI which are the subject of this Complaint arose
before BUCCl's assumption of the current term of office of Trustee of Macomb
Township and those acts (accepting bribes) rendered him ineligible to assume office
and "forever disqualified" him from holding public 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-
Letter to MAG 04/30/2018.
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
600.4501 and MCR 3.306(B)(3)(b).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE I (2014)
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
Christopher Sorrentino and/or a company controlled by Sorrentino ("Sorrentino"),
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
related to the transaction this "bribe" is referenced hereinafter as the "SORRENTINO-
BUCCI BRIBE I."
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
by payment under the SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE I.
3
17. Sorrentino was promised future Macomb Township contract work by BUCCI which
would be steered to Sorrentino by BUCCI, a sitting member of the Macomb Township
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
-10/03/2017- Rule 11 Plea, USA v. Christopher Sorrentino, Case No. 2:17-cr-20568
(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
were cashed on November 5, 2014. Id., p.3.
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
I.R.S. reporting requirements under federal law. Id, p. 4.
21. The SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE I transaction was a bribe as defined at MCL
750.118.
22. Payment of the SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE I took place in 2014 while BUCCI held
the public office of Trustee of Macomb Township.
8. SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE II (2015)
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
actually performed by another company. Id. p. 4.
24. Sorrentino was acting as a shill and conduit in the paying of the bribe to BUCCI in
2015 referenced hereinafter as the "SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE 11."
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
public office of Trustee of Macomb Township.
C. THE FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE (2015)
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
confidential bidding information from Macomb Township Departments and records
related to the waste removal contract to Charles (Chuck) Rizzo, then an employee
and/or representative of Rizzo Environmental Services (RIZZO) at the time.
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-
20732, ED Mich., Rule 11 Plea Agreement, p. 3.
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,
2016-cr-20732, ED Mich., 06/01/2017, Tr. p.24, II. 11-15.
32.0n June 1, 2017, FREITAS attested as follows:
THE COURT: No? Then what was your assistance then,

based on historic information or what?
THE DEFENDANT [FREITAS]: Yes. Historic information and

information given from a fellow trustee to -- who was on the committee.
THE COURT: Or who might have had better specific

knowledge about the way the bids were coming in?
THE DEFENDANT [FREITAS]: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. So the bids had not been unsealed

publicly, but they, there was knowledge within the elected
officials apparently?
THE DEFENDANT [FREITAS}: Yes.
THE COURT: As to how the bidding was going?
THE DEFENDANT [FREITAS]: Correct.
THE COURT: And that's the kind of information you

passed on to the executive at your company?
THE COURT: Which the company used to its financial

advantage, perhaps?
THE COURT: And acquired the contract?
Emphasis added. Id. pp. 26-27.
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
waste removal contract.
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
sensitive bid information to FREITAS for transmittal to RIZZO.
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
as the FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE.
37. FREITAS, for his part, accepted a $7500 bribe, as defined at MCL 750. 118, which
was disguised as a "loan," complete with fabricated "loan documents" being
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
U.S. Internal Revenue Code.
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
"Macomb Township way of doing business."

7
39. FREITAS later accepted a $35,000 bribe in connection with an attempt to influence
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
RIZZO in collection costs.
40. The RIZZO waste removal fee assessment policy never came to fruition as the
revelations of the corruption scandals began to unfold in Macomb Township
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
the FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE scheme.
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"
votes were directly influenced by the FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE.
COUNT I - QUO WARRANTO

SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE I (2014)
43. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as alleged
herein.
44. MCL 750.118 states, inter alia:
Public Officer Accepting a 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 be given in any
particular manner, or upon a particular side of any ques!io~, c~use ?~
proceeding, which is or may be by law brought before him in his off1c1al
8
capacity, or that in such capacity, he shall make any particular nomination or
appointment, shall forfeit his office, and be forever disqualified to hold any
public office, trust or appointment under the constitution or laws of this
state .... " (Emphasis added).
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
and is forever disqualified from holding public office again.
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
co-conspirators to accept a bribe before his current term of office.
47. BUCCI forfeited his office as Trustee when he accepted the SORRENTINO-BUCCI I
bribe in November 2014. MCL 750.118.
48. BUCCI was disqualified from holding any public office in Michigan, including that of
Macomb Township Trustee, since his acceptance of the SORRENTINO-BUCCI I
bribe in November 2014. MCL 750.118.
49. BUCCI should be removed from office upon a finding by a preponderance of the
evidence of the prohibited action (the SORRENTINO-BUCCI I bribe in November
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
unlawful FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE activity.
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.
COUNT II - QUO WARRANTO

SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE II (2015)
herein.
53. BUCCI forfeited his office as Trustee when he accepted the SORRENTINO-BUCCI II
bribe in March 2015.
54. BUCCI was forever disqualified from holding any public office, including Macomb
Township Trustee, since acceptance of the SORRENTINO-BUCCI II bribe in March
2015.
55. BUCCI should be removed from office upon a finding by a preponderance of the
evidence of the prohibited action (the SORRENTINO-BUCCI II bribe in March 2015)
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
commenced on January 1, 2017, and is "forever disqualified" from holding office
since March 2015.
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
to hold office when accepting the SORRENTINO-BUCCI II bribe in March 2015.
10
COUNT Ill - QUO WARRANTO
CONCERT OF ACTION
FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE (2015)
herein.
59. FREITAS and BUCCI at all times pertinent hereto owed a fiduciary duty to the
electors of Macomb Township.
60. The actions of FREITAS and BUCCI breached their fiduciary duties as Trustees of
Macomb Township under their actions in the FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE.
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
to violate their respective oaths of office.
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,
influence BUCCl's vote(s) as member of any relevant Macomb Township Board of
Trustees' sub-committee related to the waste management contract award in favor of
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
agreement, designed to violate the prohibition of bribe taking by a public officer at
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
confidential information provided by BUCCI to RIZZO.
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
have violated his fiduciary duties to the electors of Macomb Township.
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
COUNT IV - QUO WARRANTO

AIDING AND ABETTING/CONSPIRACY
FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE (2015)
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
Township waste removal contract by RIZZO.
75. BUCCI forfeited his office as Trustee when he participated in the FREITAS/RIZZO-
BUCCI BRIBE in 2015.
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
since acceptance of the FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE in 2015.
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
Court determines to be fair and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
Isl Frank A. Cusumano, Jr. P42781

LAW OFFICE OF FRANK A. CUSUMANO, JR.
Attorney for the Plaintiff
Dated: August 6, 2018
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-
cr-20568 (ED Mich).
Exhibit C - USA v. Clifford Freitas, 2016-cr-20732, ED Mich., Rule 11 Plea Agreement, p. 3.
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
VIA Facsimile 517-373-3042

VIA email:- miag@michigan.gov
April 30, 2018
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
Dear Mr. Schuette:
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.
Focusing on MCL 750.118, the statute states, inter alia:
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICIUGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case:2: 17-cr-20775
Judge: Berg, Terrence G.
MJ: Patti, Anthony P.
vs. Ried: 11-15-2017 At 11:45AM
INDI USA VS BUCCI {DP)
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
The Grand Jury charges:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
At all times relevant to this Indictment, all of the following was true:
1. DINO BUCCI was an agent of the Charter Township of Macomb,
Michigan ("Macomb Township"), as well as an agent of Macomb County, Michigan
("Macomb County"), both local government entities that received federal assistance
in excess of$10,000 in each ofthe calendar years 2008 through 2016.
2. From November 2000, through December 2016, DINO BUCCI served
as an elected trustee of Macomb Township.
I
r-"\ ,~
2:17-cr-20775-TG...... ~APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 2 ui 28 Pg ID 2
3. From October 3, 1994, through December 2016, DINO BUCCI
worked as an employee of the Macomb County Department of Public Works.
4. Christopher Sorrentino owned a construction business that operated in
Macomb Township and Macomb County.
5. Clifford Freitas served as an elected trustee of Macomb Township in
2016.
6. Charles B. Rizzo was the Chief Executive Officer of Rizzo
Environmental Services for most of 2016. In 2016, Rizzo Environmental Services
had a contract with Macomb Township to perform garbage collection and hauling
services for the township's residents.
7. Paulin Modi was an owner and employee of an engineering firm, which
perfonned work for Macomb County and Macomb Township.
8. Developer A was a business owner who conducted real estate
development and other business activities in Macomb Township and Macomb
County.
9. Residential Development R was a housing development project
proposed by Developer A in Macomb Township.
10. Developer B was a business owner who conducted real estate
development and other business activities in Macomb Township and Macomb

j'
County.
2
0 r'\
2:17-cr-20775-TG,= APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 3 ur 28 Pg ID 3
11. Engineering Firm A was a Michigan business that provided engineering
consulting services to Macomb Township and Macomb County.
I 2. Engineering Firm B was a Michigan business that provided engineering
consulting services to Macomb Township and Macomb County.
13. Engineering Firm C was a Michigan business that provided
engineering consulting services to Macomb County and Macomb Township.
14. All "Overt Acts" referred to in this indictment occurred in the Eastern
District of Michigan.
COUNT ONE
(18 U.S.C. §§ 371 & 666(a)- Conspiracy to commit Bribery

Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds)
D-1 DINOBUCCI
THE CONSPIRACY
I. Paragraphs I through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-
alleged and incorporated by reference in Count One as if fully set forth herein.
2. From in or about 2008, through in or about November 2016, in the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, defendant DINO BUCCI did
unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with
p·ublic officials in Macomb County, Paulin Modi, employees of Engineering Firm
A, employees of Engineering Firm B, employees of Engineering Firm C, an
employee of Macomb Township, and other individuals to corruptly solicit and
3
~\
2:17-cr-20775-;\ _3-APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg'+ of 28 Pg !D 4
demand for the benefit of any person, and accept and agree to accept, tens of
thousands of dollars in cash, hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal checks,
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,
transaction, or series of transactions of Macomb Township and Macomb County
involving $5,000 or more, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
666(a).
MANNER AND MEANS BY WHICH THE

CONSPIRACY WAS CARRIED OUT
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
cards to BUCCI in exchange for BUCCI and his co-conspirators causing
Engineering Firm A and Engineering Firm B to be awarded consulting work and
contracts with Macomb Township and Macomb County.
4. It was further part of the conspiracy that DINO BUCCI directed Paulin
Modi, employees of Engineering Firms A, B, and C, and other contractors, to pay
hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase tickets to political fundraising events
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.
5. It was further part of the conspiracy that Paulin Modi, employees of
Engineering Firms A, B, and C, and contractors provided items of value to DINO
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-
conspirators committed the following overt acts, among others:
6. In or about 2008, DINO BUCCI told an employee of Engineering Firm
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
understood that they needed to "pay-to-play" in order to do business in Macomb
County and Macomb Township.
7. In or about 2008, an employee of Engineering Firm A delivered a sealed
envelope containing $3,500 in cash to DINO BUCCI in the parking lot of
Engineering Firm A.
8. In or about 2012, Paulin Modi paid thousands of dollars to DINO
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
BUCCI for tickets to fundraising events.
9. In or about June of 2012, DINO BUCCI asked an individual who had
formerly worked for Engineering Firm A, to speak with employees at Engineering
Firm A and tell them that BUCCI wanted $500 in cash.
10. In or about June of 2012, that same individual, with the consent of
employees of Engineering Firm A, gave DINO BUCCI $500 cash.
11. In or about June of 2012, an employee of Engineering Firm A
reimbursed that individual for the $500 cash payment to DINO BUCCI, by giving
the individual $500 in Costco gift cards.
12. In or about the winter of 2014, the individual who had formerly worked
for Engineering Firm A arranged a meeting between DINO BUCCI and an
employee of Engineering Firm B, who had been seeking to obtain field service work
for his firm from Macomb Township.
13. In or about the spring of 2014, at the Macomb Township Hall, DINO
BUCCI told an employee of Engineering Firm B that he wanted $10,000 in cash.
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
work by Engineering Firm B with Macomb Township in the spring of 2014.
15. In the spring of 2014, executives of Engineering Firm B then removed
the employee from any dealings with DINO BUCCI, Macomb Township, or
Macomb County.
16. In the spring of 2014, Engineering Firm B gave money to DINO
BUCCI in the form of thousands of dollars in checks identified as campaign
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.
18. In or about December of 2014, an employee of Engineering Firm B,
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.
19. In or about December of 2014, an employee of Engineering Firm B,
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
D-1 DINO BUCCI
THE CONSPIRACY
1. Paragraphs I through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-
alleged and incorporated by reference in Count Two as if fully set forth herein.
2. From in or about the summer of 2014, until in or about the summer of
2016, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, defendant DINO
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
to influence and reward BUCCI in connection with a business, transaction,
or series of transactions of Macomb Township involving $5,000 or more;
and
b. embezzle, steal and obtain by fraud, over $96,000 belonging to· Macomb
Township,
in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a).
8
. ---··-·-····· ... -·-·-·--
r",., ;I',
2:17-cr-20775-T~~.:APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 9 v1 28 Pg ID 9
MANNER AND MEANS BY WIDCH THE

3. It was part of the conspiracy that DINO BUCCI directed Christopher
Sorrentino to submit bids for Macomb Township paving projects, including concrete
paving at the township hall and township fire station.
4. DINO BUCCI arranged for another contractor ("the pavmg
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
contractor was a subcontractor of Sorrentino, when in truth and in fact, Sorrentino
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.
5. At DINO BUCCl's direction, Sorrentino paid the paving contractor
once Sorrentino was paid the higher bid amount by the township.
6. At DINO BUCCI's direction, Sorrentino paid BUCCI cash kickbacks
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.
7. DINO BUCCI promised to give Sorrentino future work with Macomb
Township in exchange for the cash kickbacks and Sorrentino's assistance in
BUCCl's embezzlement from Macomb Township.
9
!~ /",,.
2:17-cr-20775-TGb,..;pp Doc#l Filedll/15/17 Pg10ur28 PglD10
8. DINO BUCCI directed pavmg work to Sorrentino for private
individuals, in order to compensate Sorrentino for assisting BUCCI in BUCCI's
efforts to embezzle money from Macomb Township. For this private work, DINO
BUCCI required Sorrentino to give BUCCI a portion of Sorrentino's profit. When
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
payment on his work for Macomb County on public works.
OVERT ACTS
9. In or about August 2014, DINO BUCCI arranged for the paving
contractor to repave the township hall parking lot for the price of $181,055.
10. On or about August 20, 2014, at the direction of DINO BUCCI,
Sorrentino submitted a bid of $257,800 for the township hall parking lot repaving
project.
11. On or about November 3, 2014, Sorrentino negotiated a check from
Macomb Township in the amount of$254,500.
12. On or about November 5, 2014, Sorrentino cashed and caused other
people to cash a series of checks in amounts under $10,000 in order to obtain $66,000
in cash to give to DINO BUCCI.
10
0 !",
2:17-cr-20775-TL LAPP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 1.L of 28 Pg ID 11
13. On or about November 5, 2014, Sorrentino met with DINO BUCCI at
the Macomb County Department of Public Works office in Clinton Township,
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
giving BUCCI the bag of money.
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.
15. In or about March 2015, at the direction of DINO BUCCI, Sorrentino
submitted a bid of $264,703 for the township fire department parking lot repaving
project.
16. In or about November 2015, Sorrentino negotiated a check dated
November 5, 2015, from Macomb Township in the amount of$264,703.
17. In or about November 2015, and in the months soon thereafter, at the
direction of DINO BUCCI, Sorrentino gave BUCCI at least $30,000 in cash.
11
,0 (~
2:17-cr-20775-TGB·- ..PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 12 0, 28 Pg ID 12
COUNT THREE
(18 U.S.C. § 666(a)- Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds)
D-1 DINO BUCCI
Paragraphs 1 through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-alleged and
incorporated by reference in Count Three as if fully set forth herein.
On or about November 5, 2014, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
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
Sorrentino, intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with business and
transactions of Macomb Township involving $5,000 or more.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a).
COUNT FOUR
(18 U.S.C. § 666(a)-Theft Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds)
D-1 DINOBUCCI
Paragraphs I through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-alleged and
incorporated by reference in Count Four as if fully set forth herein.
On or about November 3, 2014, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division ' defendant DINO

.
BUCCI did embezzle, steal, and obtain by fraud, more
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
(18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)- Money Laundering)
D-1 DINO BUCCI
incorporated by reference in Count Five as if fully set forth herein.
In or about November 2014, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
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,
including Christopher Sorrentino, in knowingly, intentionally, and unlawfully
conducting and causing to be conducted financial transactions in and affecting
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
the proceeds of said unlawful activity.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(l)(B)(i).
13
(', .r-\
2:17-cr-20775-TG._ -\PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 14 1..lf 28 Pg ID 14
COUNT SIX
(18 U.S.C. § 666(a)-Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds)
D-1 DINO BUCCI
Paragraphs l through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-a1Ieged and
incorporated by reference in Count Six as if fully set forth herein.
In or about March 2015, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
of any person, and accept and agree to accept, at least $30,000 in cash from
Christopher Sorrentino, intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with
business and transactions of Macomb Township involving $5,000 or more.
COUNT SEVEN
(18 U.S.C. § 666(a)- Theft Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds)
D-1 DINO BUCCI
Paragraphs l through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-alleged and
incorporated by reference in Count Seven as if fully set forth herein.
In or about March 2015, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
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
2:17-cr-20775-TGE:., .PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 15 LIi 28 Pg ID 15
COUNT EIGHT
(18 U.S.C. § 1341-Mail Fraud)
D-1 DINO BUCCI
1. Paragraphs 1 through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-
alleged and incorporated by reference in Count Eight as if fully set forth herein.
2. Defendant DINO BUCCI, knowingly and with intent to defraud,
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
pretenses, representations, and promises.
THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD
3. In or about September 2014, water damage occurred to several ceiling
tiles in the Macomb Township Hall, located at 54111 Broughton Road, Macomb
Township, Michigan.· DINO BUCCI enlisted the assistance of Developer A to steal
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,
paid approximately $12,000 to BUCCI. Developer A paid DINO BUCCI in the
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.
4. On about November 21, 2014, in the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, defendant DINO BUCCI, in executing the scheme to defraud,
knowingly caused checks and invoices to be delivered by mail.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341.
COUNT NINE
(18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)-Money Laundering)
D-1 DINO BUCCI
incorporated by reference in Count Nine as if fully set forth herein.
From in or about November 2014, through in or about January 2015, in the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern 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, mail fraud, a felony under Title 18, United States Code, Section
1341, did himself and did aid and abet others in knowingly, intentionally, and
unlawfully conducting and causing to be conducted financial transactions in and
affecting interstate commerce which involved the proceeds of said unlawful activity,
16
~ i~
I '
2:17-cr-20775-TGB-,.f>p Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 17 u, 28 Pg ID 17
with the intent to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and
control of the proceeds of said unlawful activity.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(l)(B)(i).
COUNT TEN
(18 U.S.C. § 1951 - Extortion: Miscellaneous payments by Developer A)
D-1 DINO BUCCI
incorporated by reference in Count Ten as if fully set forth herein.
In and between 2011 and 2016, in the Eastern District of Michigan, defendant
DINO BUCCI did knowingly and unlawfully obstruct, delay and affect interstate
commerce by extortion, in that he obtained payments from Developer A of over
$10,000 each calendar year, with the consent of Developer A, induced by wrongful
use of fear of economic harm and under color of official right.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951 .
COUNT ELEVEN
( 18 lJ. S. C. § 1951 - Attempted Extortion: Property Commission Scheme)
D-1 DINO BUCCI
incorporated by reference in Count Eleven as if fully set forth herein.
17
,0 /\
2:17-cr-20775-TGb. \'pp Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 18 uf 28 Pg ID 18
In or about 2014, in the Eastern District of Michigan, defendant DINO
BUCCI did knowingly and unlawfully attempt to obstruct, delay and affect interstate
commerce through extortion, in that he attempted to obtain payments from
Developer A of approximately $50,000 in a property commission scheme involving
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.
All in violation ofTitle 18, United States Code, Section 1951.
COUNT TWELVE
(18 U.S.C. § 1951 --Extortion: Residential Development R)
D-1 DINO BUCCI
Paragraphs I through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-alleged and
incorporated by reference in Count Twelve as if fully set forth herein:
On or about May 8, 2015, in the Eastern District of Michigan, defendant
DINO BUCCI did knowingly and unlawfully obstruct, delay and affect interstate
commerce through extortion, in that he obtained a $3,500 cash payment from
Developer A related to Residential Development R, with the consent of Developer
A, induced by wrongful use of fear of economic harm and under color of official
right.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951.
18
.0 I\
2:17-cr-20775-TG .... APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 1~ uf 28 Pg ID 19
COUNTS THIRTEEN THROUGH SIXTEEN,
(18 U.S.C. § 666(a)-Theft Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds)
D-1 DINO BUCCI
1. Paragraphs 1 through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-
aBeged and incorporated by reference in Counts Thirteen through Sixteen as if fully
set forth herein.
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
personal use and stole the following property of Macomb County:
a. Snow plows, trucks, and labor of Macomb County Department of Public
Works employees working on County-paid time, whom DINO BUCCI
would make plow his and his relatives and friends' driveways on snowy
mornings, even before BUCCI permitted them to plow County owned
properties.
b. Those same employees' County-paid time and labor to perform routine
maintenance at DINO BUCCl's home, including yard clean-up, removing
pinecones, moving lawn furniture, and other tasks.
19
r~ 0
2:17-cr-20775-TGL. ,PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 20 vf 28 Pg ID 20
c. A Macomb County Department of Public Works employee on County-paid
time who was tasked with driving DINO BUCCl's child to school each
morning, which was approximately a twenty-five minute drive each way.
d. Macomb County Department of Public Works employees who DINO
BUCCI made work on County-paid time to place campaign signs for
BUCCI and his favored political candidates, and remove campaign signs
ofBUCCI's rivals.
e. Macomb County Department of Public Works employees who were tasked
by DINO BUCCI to provide personal moving services on County-paid
time, including a trip to Ohio to move the belongings of the girlfriend of
BUCCI's associate and the movement of the personal belongings of
BUCCI's associate.
3. In conducting his theft from Macomb County, DINO BUCCI
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
take away overtime pay opportunities, and to send employees to an undesirable
workstation with a twenty-four hour shift if they did not perform tasks to benefit
BUCCI personally or to benefit his political allies, unrelated to county work.
20
······ ·-·--····-··--------------------------------------
(~ (~.·-·
2:17-cr-20775-TGL ·1·'\PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 21 ut 28 Pg ID 21
4. Each of the following constitutes a separate count of this Indictment:
Count Defendant Calendar Year
13 D-1 DINO BUCCI 2013
16 0-1 DINO BUCCI 2016

~
COUNT SEVENTEEN
(18 U.S.C. §§ 371 & 666(a) - Conspiracy to commit Bribery

D-1 DINOBUCCI
THE CONSPIRACY
1. Paragraphs 1 through 14 of the General A1legations are hereby re-
alleged and incorporated by reference in Count Seventeen as if fully set forth herein.
2. From in or about 2012, through about November of 2016, in the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, defendant DINO BUCCI did unlawfully,
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
DINO BUCCI in connection with a business, transaction, or series of transactions

21
0
2:17-cr-20775-TGL APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 22 of 28 Pg JD 22
of Macomb Township involving $5,000 or more, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 666(a).
MANNER AND MEANS BY WHICH THE

3. It was part of the conspiracy that DINO BUCCI would notify
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
official position as a trustee with Macomb Township to ensure that Developer B
could purchase property owned by the township, including BUCCI voting in favor
of selling township property to Developer B.
5. It was further part of the conspiracy that Developer B would pay DINO
BUCCI a kickback of at least $10,000 after Developer B purchased property from
Macomb Township.
OVERT ACTS
6. In or about 2012, DINO BUCCI told Developer B about some parcels
of land that Macomb Township had acquired through a tax foreclosure.
22
,f\ \.
2:17-cr-20775-TG.._ APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 2~ of 28 Pg ID 23
7. In or about 2012, DINO BUCCI used his. position as a trustee to
facilitate the sale of those parcels of land to Developer B, including voting in favor
of the sale of the parcels to Developer B.
8. In or about 2012, after Developer B purchased the parcels, Developer
B paid DINO BUCCI $10,000.
9. In or about 2016, DINO BUCCI told Developer B about 40 acres of
land that Macomb Township had acquired through a tax foreclosure.
10. In or about 2016, Developer B promised to pay at least a $25,000
kickback to DINO BUCCI if he were able to facilitate a sale of the 40 acres to
Developer B.
11. In or about 2016, Developer B gave a $20,000 deposit to Macomb
Township to purchase the 40 acres.
COUNT EIGHTEEN
( 18 U.S.C. § 666(a) - Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds)
D-1 DINO BUCCI
incorporated by reference in Count Eighteen as if fully set forth herein.
On or about June 30, 2016, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
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, intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with business and
transactions of Macomb Township involving $5,000 or more, namely, arranging for
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
(18.S.C. § 98l(a)(l)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 246l(c)-Criminal Forfeiture)
1. The allegations contained in Counts One through Eighteen of this
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)
and Title 28, United States Code, Section 246l(c).
2. Upon conviction of a conspiracy to violate Title 18, United States Code,
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
property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from gross proceeds
traceable to said violations. The United States shall also seek the imposition of a
personal forfeiture money judgment against the defendant in an amount up to the
24
~ I'\,
2:17-cr-20775-TGl {PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 25 vi 28 Pg ID 25
value of gross proceeds obtained as a result of the defendant's participation in the
conspiracy to violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a).
3. Upon conviction of the offenses in violation of Title 18, United States
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
imposition of a personal forfeiture money judgment against the defendant in an
amount up to the value of gross proceeds obtained as a result of the defendant's
violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a).
4. Upon conviction of the offenses in violation of Title 18, United States
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
personal forfeiture money judgment against the defendant in an amount up to the
value of gross proceeds obtained as a result of the defendant's violations of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1341.
25
f\ ;\
2:17-cr-20775-TG, ),PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 26 vf 28 Pg ID 26
5. Upon conviction of the offense in violation of Title 18, United States
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
imposition of a personal forfeiture money judgment against the defendant in an
amount up to the value of gross proceeds obtained as a result of the defendant's
violations ofTitle 18, United States Code, Section 1951.
6. Upon conviction of the offense in violation of Title 18, United States
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
of a personal forfeiture money judgment against the defendant in an amount up to
the value of gross proceeds obtained as a result of the defendant's violations of Title
18, United States Code, Section 1956.
7. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission
of the defendant:
26
(\ ~'
2:17-cr-20775-TGL. {PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 27 v, 28 Pg ID 27
a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;
c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;
d. has been substantialJy diminished in value; or
e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided
without difficulty,
the United States of America shalJ be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property
pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by TitJe
28, United States Code, Section 246I(c).
AH pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981 (a)(l)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461 (c).
THIS rs A TRUE BILL
s/Grand Jury Foreperson

GRAND JURY FOREPERSON.
DANIELL. LEMISCH
Acting United States Attorney
s/R. Michael BuJJotta s/David A. Gardey

R. MICHAEL BULLOTTA DA YID A. GARDEY
Assistant United States Attorney Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Public Corruption Unit
Dated: November 15, 2017
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.
Companion Case Number: 16-20732, 17-20363 & 17-20568
This may be a companion case based upon LCrR 57.10 (b)(4)': Judge Assigned: Robert H. Cleland
ig)Yes AUSA's Initials:
Case Title: USA v. D-1 DINO BUCCI

-----------------------
County where offense occurred : Macomb
--------------------
Check One: 181Felony D Misdemeanor 0Petty
__{_tndictment/__lnformation -- no prior complaint.

__lndictment/__lnformation -- based upon prior complaint [Case number:
__lndictment/_lnformation -- based upon LCrR 57.10 (d) [Complete Superseding section below].
Superseding to Case No: Judge:

-------------
0Corrects errors; no additional charges or defendants.
Involves, for plea purposes, different charges or adds counts.
B Embraces same subject matter but adds the additional defendants or charges below:
Defendant name Charges Prior Complaint (if applicable}
Please take notice that the below listed Assistant United States Attorney is the attorney of record for
the above captioned case.
November 15, 2017

Date R. MICHAEL B LOTTA
Assistant United S ates Attorney
211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001
Detroit, Ml 48226-3277
Phone: 313-226-9507
Fax: 313-226-3413
E-Mail address: Michael. Bullotta@usdoj.gov
Attorney Bar#: 163401 (CA)
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
Macomb Twp Trustee

Four 4-year terms
Official results, updated November 22, 3:02 PM
Race List I Race Summary I Race Details I Race Details (Printer FriendlY.).
35 of 35 (100.0%) precincts reporting*

Nancy J. Nevers REP 24,418 21.8% ®al
Timothy F. Bussineau REP 24,372 21.7% •llm

Roger M. Krzeminski REP 23,926 21.3% : -
Dino Bucci REP 20,256 18.1% (i!1l!la
Michael J. O'Lear DEM 19,142 17.1% fim
*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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CRIMINAL NO. 17-20568
vs. HON. ROBERT H. CLELAND
OFFENSE: 31 U.S.C. § 5324

D-1 CHRISTOPHER SORRENTINO,
MAXIMUM PENALTIES:
Up to 5 Years Imprisonment
Defendant. Up to $250,000 fine
Supervised Release: 3 years
-------------~/
RULEllPLEAAGREEMENT
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, defendant
CHRISTOPHER SORRENTINO and the government agree as follows:
1. Guilty Plea
A. Count of Conviction
The defendant witl enter a plea of guilty to Count One of the Information,
which charges him with structuring financial transactions to evade a reporting
requirement, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3524.
B. Elements of Offense
The following are the elements of the crime of structuring financial
transactions to evade a reporting requirement:

r'"'; {\
Case 2:17-cr-20568-RHG ":sw ECF No. 12 filed 10/03/17 F ....::,elD.20 Page 2 of 24
(1) The defendant conducted or attempted to conduct a financial transaction
that involved a domestic financial institution.
(2) At the time the defendant conducted or attempted to conduct a financial
transaction, the defendant knew of the domestic financial institution's obligation to
report currency transactions in excess of $10,000.
(3) The defendant purposefully structured the transaction with the intent to
evade that reporting requirement.
C. Factual Basis for Guilty Plea
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
municipalities in southeast Michigan. In approximately August 2014, an elected
public official in Macomb Township, Michigan asked the defendant to prepare a
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
completed all of the work on the parking lot.
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
Works in Clinton Township, Michigan.
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
The Court will find sentencing factors by a preponderance of the evidence.
B. Agreed Guideline Range
There are no sentencing guideline disputes. Except as provided below, the
parties recommend that the defendant's guideline range is 10-16 months, as set forth
on the attached worksheets. If the Court finds:
1. That defendant's criminal history category is higher than reflected on
the attached worksheets, or
2. that the offense level should be higher because, after pleading guilty,
defendant made any false statement to or withheld information from
his probation officer; otherwise demonstrated. a lack of acceptance of
responsibility for his offense; or obstructed justice or committed any
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
recommendation. However, if the Court finds that defendant is a career offender, an
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
in the agreed range.
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
as necessary to the Court's determination regarding subsections 1) and 2), above.
3. Sentence
The Court will impose a sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553, and in doing
so must consider the sentencing guideline range.
A. Imprisonment
Pursuant to Rule ll(c)(l)(B), the government makes a non-binding
recommendation that the sentence of imprisonment be at the low end of the
sentencing guideline range as determined by Paragraph 2B.
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
agreement concerning imprisonment described above in Paragraph 3A does not apply
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.
4. Use of Withdrawn Guilty Plea
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
plea agreement, against him in any proceeding.
5. Other Charges
If the Court accepts this agreement, the government will not bring any
additional charges based on defendant's conduct described in this agreement.
-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
6. Each Party's Right to Withdraw from This Agreement
The recommendations in Paragraph 3 are not binding on the Court. Defendant
has no right to withdraw his guilty plea and the parties have no right to withdraw
from this agreement if the Court decides not to follow them.
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.
If the defendant's sentence of imprisonment is at least IO months, the government
waives any right it may have to appeal the defendant's sentence.
This waiver does not bar filing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in
court.
8. Consequences of Withdrawal of Guilty Plea or Vacation of Conviction
If defendant is allowed to withdraw his guilty plea or if any conviction entered
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.
9. Parties to Plea Agreement
Unless otherwise indicated, this agreement does not bind any government
agency except the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of
Michigan.
10. Scope of Plea Agreement
This agreement, which includes all documents that it explicitly incorporates, is
the complete agreement between the parties. This agreement supersedes all other
promises, representations, understandings and agreements between the parties
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
incorporated into this agreement.
Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, if defendant has entered into a proffer
agreement in writing or a cooperation agreement in writing with the government, this
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.
11. Acceptance of Agreement by Defendant
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
Dated: June 6, 2017
- 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
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICIDGAN
~r JUN 1- 2017
SOUTHERN DIVISION CLERK'S OFFICE
DETROIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CRIMINAL NO. 16-20732
vs. HON. ROBERT H. CLELAND
OFFENSE: 18 U.S.C. § 371

D-4 CLIFFORD FREITAS,
MAXIMUM PENALTIES:
Up to 5 Years Imprisonment
Defendant. Up to $250,000 fine
Supervised Release: 3 years
- - - - - - - - - - - - -I
RULE 11 PLEA AGREEMENT
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, defendant
CLIFFORD FREITAS and the government agree as follows:
1. Guilty Plea
A. Count of Conviction
The defendant will enter a plea of guilty to Count One of the Third Superseding
Information, which charges him with Conspiracy to Commit Federal Program
Bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 666(a).
B. Elements of Offense
The following are the elements of the crime of Conspiracy to Commit Federal
Program Bribery:
0.
1. Defendant agreed with at least one other person to commit the

crime of federal program bribery;
2. Defendant joined the conspiracy knowing of its object and

intending to help accomplish the object; and
3. A member of the conspiracy committed at least one overt act in

furtherance of the conspiracy.
4. The following are the elements of the crime of federal program

bribery:
a) Defendant, an agent of a local government, corruptly
accepted or agreed to accept something of value;
b) Defendant did so with the intent to be influenced or
rewarded in connection with a business, transaction or series of
transactions with that local government;
c) The business, transaction or series of transactions
involved something of value of $5,000 or more; and
d) The local government received $10,000 or more in federal
assistance in a one-year period before or after the time of the
offense.
C. Factual Basis for Guilty Plea
The following facts are a sufficient and accurate basis for defendant's guilty
plea:
In 2015, the defendant was serving as an elected Trustee of Macomb
Township, Michigan, located in Macomb County, Michigan, in the Eastern District
of Michigan. In 2015, the defendant agreed to accept and did corruptly accept
payments of money, as described below, from an executive at a company ("Company
A") which was seeking, and then secured, a contract with Macomb Township. The
-2-
contract was worth approximately $17 million dollars. The defendant accepted the
money in exchange for his assistance as a public official to Company A.
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
defendant $7,500 for his assistance in getting the contract.
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
employment with Company A. Macomb Township awarded the contract to Company
A. The executive then paid the defendant the promised $7,500 by adding $7,500 to
the defendant's pay as an employee of Company A.
In the calendar year 2015, Macomb Township received in excess of $10,000
in federal assistance.
-3-
2. Sentencing Guidelines
A. Standard of Proof
The Court will find sentencing factors by a preponderance of the evidence.
B. Agreed Guideline Range
There are no sentencing guideline disputes. Except as provided below, the
parties recommend that the defendant's guideline range is 30 months, as set forth on
the attached worksheets. If the Court finds:
I. That defendant's criminal history category is higher than reflected on
the attached worksheets, or
2. that the offense level should be higher because, after pleading guilty,
defendant made any false statement to or withheld information from
his probation officer; otherwise demonstrated a lack of acceptance of
responsibility for his offense; or obstructed justice or committed any
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
recommendation. However, if the Court finds that defendant is a career offender, an
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
in the agreed range.
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
as necessary to the Court's determination regarding subsections 1) and 2), above.
3. Sentence
The Court will impose a sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553, and in doing
so must consider the sentencing guideline range.
A. Imprisonment
Pursuant to Rule ll(c)(l)(B), the government makes a non-binding
recommendation that the sentence of imprisonment be no higher than 30 months.
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
agreement concerning imprisonment described above in Paragraph 3A does not apply
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-
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.
4. Use of Withdrawn Guilty Plea
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
plea agreement, against him in any proceeding.
5. Other Charges
If the .Court accepts this agreement, the government will not bring any
additional charges based on defendant's conduct described in this agreement.
6. Each Party's Right to Withdraw from This Agreement
The recommendations in Paragraph 3 are not binding on the Court. Defendant
has no right to withdraw his guilty plea and the parties have no right to withdraw
from this agreement if the Court decides not to follow them.
-6-
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.
If the defendant's sentence of imprisonment is at least 30 months, the government
waives any right it may have to appeal the defendant's sentence.
This waiver does not bar filing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in
court.
8. C~nsequences of Withdrawal of Guilty Plea or Vacation of Conviction
If defendant is allowed to withdraw his guilty plea or if any conviction entered
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-
9. Parties to Plea Agreement
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.
10. Scope of Plea Agreement
This agreement, which includes all documents that it explicitly incorporates, is
the complete agreement between the parties. This agreement supersedes all other
promises, representations, understandings and agreements between the parties
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
incorporated into this agreement.
Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, if defendant has entered into a proffer
agreement in writing or a cooperation agreement in writing with the government, this
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-
11. Acceptance of Agreement by Defendant
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
Assistant United States Attorney

~H(lfid:(/lgf
Assistant United States Attorney
Dated: June 1, 2017
-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
---..
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-F<SW ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 PagelD.633 Page 1 of 30

1
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
2 SOUTHERN DIVISION
3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
4 Plaintiff, Case No. 16-20732

-v-
5
D-4, CLIFFORD FREITAS,
6
Defendant.
7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · - - - -I
8 PLEA HEARING
9 BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT H. CLELAND

United States District Judge
10 Federal Building
526 Water Street
11 Port Huron, Michigan
June 1, 2017
12
APPEARANCES:
13
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: DAVID GARDEY
14 MICHAEL BULLOTTA
U.S. Attorney's Office
15 211 W. Fort Street
Suite 2001
16 Detroit, MI 48226
17 FOR THE DEFENDANT: DANIEL GARON

Fischer, Garon, Hoyumpa & Ranciolio
18 48 Market Street
Suite 2B
19 Mt. Clemens , MI 48043
20
21 To Obtain a Certified Transcript Contact:

Christin E. Russell, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CSR - (248) 420-2720
22 Proceedings produced by mechanical stenography.
Transcript produced by computer-aided Transcription.
23
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
1 Port Huron, Michigan
2 June 1, 2017
3 1:41 p.m.
4 * * *
5 (Call to Order of the Court; all parties present.)
6 THE CLERK: The Court calls case 16-20732, Defendant
7 4. United States of America vs. Clifford Freitas.
8 Counsel, please state your appearances for the record.
9 MR. GARDEY: Good afternoon, your Honor. David Gardey
10 on behalf of the United States.
11 MR. BULLOTTA: Good afternoon, your Honor. Michael
12 Bullotta for the United States.
13 MR. GARON: Daniel Garon for Defendant.
14 THE COURT: And the defendant is personally present,
15 Mr. Freitas, Mr. Garon?
16 MR. GARON: Yes, sir.
17 THE COURT: And I have a, what appears to be a signed
18 Rule 11 plea agreement. The defendant intends to proffer a
19 plea of guilty this afternoon?
20 MR. GARON: That's correct, your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Would you come to the lectern, please, and
22 I'll ask the defendant to be sworn.
23 THE CLERK: Would you please raise your right hand.
24 (Defendant sworn, 1:43 p.m.)
25 THE COURT: Your full name is what?
UNITED STATES vs. FREITAS, D-4 - 16-20732

Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-R:::iW ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 Paye!D.636 Page 4 of 30
4
1 THE DEFENDANT: Clifford Wilhelm Freitas.
2 THE COURT: And Mr. Freitas, you are under oath and
3 it's important for you to speak truthfully in answering
4 questions that I have for you under oath. You understand
5 that --
6 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
7 THE COURT: fundamentally, do you not?
9 THE COURT: It is accordingly important that you
10 understand the questions that I'm asking you, so you need to
11 listen carefully of course. If you say something under oath
12 that you know is not true, that would be perjury, if it's a
13 thing of some importance, any importance. And if you were to
14 be found to have spoken falsely intentionally and in some
15 material way while under oath, you could be charged with
16 committing perjury, in which case things that you say could be
17 used against you. And even if I were to find that you had
18 spoken falsely but not been criminally prosecuted, I would
19 certainly take those facts into account in imposing a sentence
20 upon you.
21 You understand all of those explanations?
23 THE COURT: How old are you, Mr. Freitas?
24 THE DEFENDANT: Forty-three.
25 THE COURT: And what level of education do you have?

(~), r"',.

5
1 THE DEFENDANT: A bachelor's plus.
2 THE COURT: So you understand me clearly today and
3 understand the kind of language that I'm using, true?
5 THE COURT: If there's anything that I say from this
6 point forward that you think you don't understand or you need
7 additional explanation, or you just need it repeated, feel
8 free, raise your hand, tell me you need some assistance in that
9 regard. I'll be happy to provide it. Clear?
11 THE COURT: Are you feeling the intoxicating effects
12 of any drugs or alcohol that you have recently consumed?
13 THE DEFENDANT: No.
14 THE COURT: Are you under a doctor's care that
15 requires any sort of significant medication?
17 THE COURT: Is there anything, as far as you are
18 concerned, wrong with your mental or physical state today?
20 THE COURT: You feel alert, awake and prepared to
21 proceed, I take it?
23 THE COURT: Mr. Garon, are you in agreement on the
24 defendant's competence?
25 MR. GARON: I am, sir.

('\ ~
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-r<SW ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 PayelD.638 Page 6 of 30
6
1 THE COURT: And I find he is competent to proceed.
2 Mr. Freitas, you have the right to have an attorney
3 represent you at every stage of the proceeding. If you are
4 financially able to afford to hire an attorney of your own
5 choosing, that's fine. But if you are not able to do so
6 financially, you, upon request, may be afforded an attorney to
7 serve at public expense throughout every stage of the
8 proceeding, which would include a trial in the event that you
9 wanted to demand a trial.
10 Do you understand the importance of, and the
11 availability of an attorney to represent you at every stage of
12 the proceeding?
14 THE COURT: You've talked about this case with your
15 attorney, Mr. Garon at some length, I take it; is that true?
17 THE COURT: And is it the case that you hired him to
18 represent you or was he appointed?
19 THE DEFENDANT: He was hired.
20 THE COURT: You've had ample time to discuss this case
21 with him?
23 THE COURT: Are you confident that he understands the
24 case against you and the evidence and the significance of it?

('-...
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-k6W ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 Pa.yt!ID.639 Page 7 of 30

7
1 THE COURT: Are you also confident that you understand
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
6 a question of that sort.
7 The decision to plead guilty has to be on your
8 shoulders. This is a decision that only a defendant can make.
9 Your attorney is not permitted to make this decision for you,
10 to make the call for you, so to speak. You have to decide,
11 with careful consideration of his advice, one would hope, but
12 ultimately, it is your decision. You do understand that?
14 THE COURT: If I accept your guilty plea today, you
15 will be convicted of the crime to which you are pleading guilty
16 and you will not have a trial. You understand that?
18 THE COURT: And you understand that the constitutional
19 rights that you would have at a trial, you are giving up in
20 view of the intended guilty plea, right?
22 THE COURT: Mr. Garon, the defendant is pleading
23 guilty on a Third Superseding Information, upon which the
24 defendant should be arraigned. I suggest that the complexity
25 of a Rule 11 colloquy substitutes well for a formal

I
~' I
'~
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-i-.::5W ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 PayelD.640 Page 8 of 30

8
1 arraignment, and that you can safely waive the formal
2 arraignment and proceed with the rest of the Rule 11.
3 MR. GARON: I would agree, your Honor.
4 THE COURT: Thank you.
5 Mr. Gardey agrees?
6 MR. GARDEY: Yes, your Honor.
7 THE COURT: Good.
8 The rights that you are giving up, I am confident you
9 have discussed already in some detail, very likely with your
10 attorney, but I need to go over them and have you acknowledge
11 them on the record today.
12 First, you're giving up the right to continue with a
13 plea of not guilty or to have one entered for you, and to have
]_ 4 a trial by jury with a lawyer assisting you. Do you understand
]_ 5 that?
17 THE COURT: Second, you are giving up the right to be
18 presumed innocent, which requires the Government to prove that
19 you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of
20 a unanimous jury. You understand that?
2 ]_ THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
22 THE COURT: You're giving up the right to confront the
23 witnesses against you, as the law terms it, the right to
24 question the witnesses, to listen and watch while they testify,
25 the right to challenge their testimony, to put a spin on it

f'\ /'"\.
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-kSW ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 PctgelD.641 Page 9 of 30
9
1 different from that which the Government might suggest.
2 And relatedly, you're giving up the right to subpoena
3 additional witnesses into court and have them give testimony,
4 if there are any such witnesses, that you might want to present
5 in your own defense. You understand you're giving that up as
6 well?
8 THE COURT: Finally, you're giving up the right to
9 testify or to avoid testifying at your own trial, a decision
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
12 to testify at your trial, and no one can prohibit you from
13 testifying at your trial. It remains your choice. Do you
14 understand that?
16 THE COURT: There are two other rights in your Rule 11
17 agreement that you are giving up which we need to discuss and
18 acknowledge.
19 First is with respect to the conviction that I will
20 enter if I accept your guilty plea today. You are giving up in
21 advance whatever right you might otherwise have to appeal your
22 conviction, that is, to complain about the fact that you've
23 been convicted based upon your guilty plea. It seems
24 counterintuitive but it actually is a right that you would
25 otherwise have, almost never successful, but occasionally

"~
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-ks::iW ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 Pa\:JelD.642 Page 10 of 30

10
1 raised. You're giving it up in advance. You're saying, you're
2 committing yourself I'm not going to appeal the conviction, I'm
3 not going to complain about it, I'm going to accept it. Do you
4 understand that?
6 THE COURT: Now, that means that if I accept your
7 guilty plea, it's permanent. It's not going to get undone.
8 You don't get to change your mind tomorrow or next week. It's
9 just set in cement and that's it, right?
11 THE COURT: The other right similarly that you are
12 giving up is the right to challenge your sentence, as long as
13 your sentence does not exceed 30 months. That's in the Rule 11
14 agreement. If that condition is met, then you are, in other
15 words, if you receive a sentence of 30 months or less, then
16 your promise is sound and solid, and that promise means you
17 will not be permitted to challenge or to quibble about the
18 actual sentence that you did receive, whatever it may turn out
19 to be. Do you understand that?
21 THE COURT: Well, I guess there is this one other
22 right that you have, and that is to be charged by a grand jury.
23 But you've agreed in advance to be charged in a document
24 prepared by the prosecutor specifying this single conspiracy
25 count, bribery conspiracy, and that's a document that's called

.~
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-h..:,W ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 Pa~elD.643 Page 11 of 30
11
1 an Information. And you've agreed to be charged on an
2 Information instead of a grand jury indictment, which could
3 charge you, probably would charge you with more and different
4 offenses. I'm guessing about that, but that's often the case.
5 Do you understand the right that you're giving up by
6 agreement to be charged for purposes of entering this plea on
7 an Information, yes?
9 THE COURT: The charge of conspiracy to commit bribery
10 concerning programs receiving federal funds in violation of
11 Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 and Section 666(a) is
12 an offense which, upon conviction, can result in a sentence up
13 to five years, 60 months, in other words, of imprisonment. A
14 fine of up to $250,000 can be imposed in addition to
15 imprisonment. Do you understand those things?
17 THE COURT: A $100 special assessment is due, even if
18 no fine is imposed. You understand that?
20 THE COURT: Supervised release would follow any term
21 of imprisonment. Supervised release would last for at least
22 one year, and probably longer than that, up to three years
23 maximum.
24 Supervised release requires lawful behavior, regular
25 and truthful reporting, things of that sort. Any significant

I\
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-h0W ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 PuvelD.644 Page 12 of 30
12
1 violation of supervised release could result in revocation and
2 additional imprisonment. Do you understand that?
4 THE COURT: If there is an identifiable victim,
5 financial victim in cases such as this, I could also require
6 you to pay restitution to any person or entity financially
7 victimized. Do you understand that, sir?
9 THE COURT: You were born and raised in the U.S.?
11 THE COURT: So you're a citizen.
12 Any sentence that you receive is going to be governed
13 by federal sentencing law, and that will include the sentencing
14 guidelines calculations that I will make independently of the
15 attorneys.
16 They have suggested in the Rule 11 plea agreement that
17 the guideline range is a straight 30 months. I don't quite
18 understand that. Usually it's a range. But whatever
19 perhaps I will hear from that, Mr. Gardey, in a few moments
20 with respect to that and the terms and the conditions of the
21 plea agreement.
22 But here's the way it works, Mr. Freitas. First, I
23 need to calculate a sentencing range under the sentencing
24 guidelines provision, and that takes into account your behavior
25 in this offense, the amount of money involved, other actors,

0
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-R.::,W ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 PagelD.645 Page 13 of 30
13
1 what role you played, how serious it was, how important your
2 role was in any conspiracy that existed and things of that
3 sort. Also, if I didn't say that, the amount of money involved
4 with respect to your behavior.
5 Putting all those things together with your criminal
6 background, if there is any, results in a range of sentences
7 from a low end to a high end ordinarily. And judges are
8 encouraged to consider that range of sentences in imposing an
9 individualized sentence. Are you with me so far?
11 THE COURT: Judges may well often give a sentence to a
12 defendant that is within the guideline range, in other words,
13 somewhere between the low end and the high end or they may
14 deviate from that for sufficient reasons, for other reasons
15 beyond those involved in the calculation of the guidelines. So
16 that could result in a sentence below the low end of ~he
17 guideline range or above the high end of the guideline range.
18 No higher than the statutory maximum, five years, nothing like
19 that is permitted, of course, but those are possibilities with
20 respect to sentencing and the guideline range. Do you
21 understand those things?
23 THE COURT: And you understand I am not required to
24 stay within the range, right?

Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-k...,W ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 Pa~elD.646 Page 14 of 30
PLEA.HEARING - 6/1/2017
14
1 THE COURT: Whatever the range may happen to be.
2 Also, the attorneys have identified this, an amount of
3 30 months as being the range, which I'll hear about, I am sure
4 in a moment or two, as I said, but whatever their
5 recommendation is, that's only a recommendation. They may have
6 calculated it exactly correctly, or it might be incorrectly
7 calculated for some reason that I'll later find out about.
8 Whatever the case may be, I'm going to independently do that
9 with the help of the Probation Department. And the sentencing
10 range that I calculate is the one I'm going to use. It might
11 be lower than this, it might be higher. I have no idea. That
12 will have to remain for later determination. Do you
13 understand, sir?
15 THE COURT: Any questions about any of these things
16 about sentencing?
17 THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
18 THE COURT: This is all included in the things you've
19 discussed, I 1 m sure, with your attorney, right?
21 THE COURT: Your plea of guilty is a result of
22 discussions and negotiations and agreements between you and the
23 Government involving your attorney at least, perhaps involving
24 you as well. There's been no involvement of the Court,
25 however. There is no agreement with the Court. I have not

Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-R:,W ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 Pa~elD.647 Page 15 of 30
15
1 approved of this plea. I have not approved of any sentencing
2 parameters or sentencing results. Whatever arrangements you
3 have, they are strictly with the Government. And by, when I
4 say the Government, I mean the prosecution. Do you understand,
5 sir?
7 THE COURT: Mr. Gardey, would you summarize the
8 significant terms of the plea agreement, please, for the
9 record?
11 Mr. Freitas has agreed to plead guilty to the sole
12 count of the Third Superseding Information for a violation of
13 Section 371, a conspiracy to commit federal program bribery.
14 The parties are in agreement in recommending a
15 guideline range of 30 months, and the 30 months was arrived at
16 as follows:
17 The parties agree that under the sentencing guideline
18 range, the range is above 60 months. Sixty months is the
19 statutory maximum, and so under the guidelines, 60 months
20 becomes the guideline range. However, the parties also agree
21 to recommend a downward departure under Section 5K2.0 for a
22 downward departure to 30 months, and to make the range, the
23 recommended range 30 months.
24 These recommendations by the parties are not binding
25 on the Court. And neither of the parties can withdraw from the

~'
I .I .~
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-k..,W ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 Pa8 e1D.648 Page 16 of 30
16
1 agreement if the Court finds a different guideline range should
2 apply, or if the Court sentences the defendant to a higher or a
3 lower sentence at the time of sentencing.
4 The Government has agreed that it will recommend to
5 the Court that the defendant be sentenced to no higher than 30
6 months. The Government has agreed it will not bring any
7 additional charges against the defendant based on the conduct
8 described in the Rule 11 plea agreement.
9 The defendant has agreed to waive any right to appeal
10 his conviction. And if the sentence imposed is no higher than
11 30 months, he has agreed to waive any right he has to appeal
12 his sentence. The Government has agreed to waive its right to
13 appeal if the defendant is sentenced to at least 30 months in
14 prison.
15 There is also in addition a separate agreement between
16 the parties, where the defendant has agreed to cooperate
17 truthfully and completely. He's also agreed to testify as
18 required. The Government has agreed to evaluate the nature and
19 the substance of his cooperation. And if that cooperation
20 reaches a level of substantial assistance, the Government has
21 agreed to bring a motion for a downward departure seeking a
22 sentence below the recommended guideline range.
23 Those are the material terms of the agreements between
24 the parties.
25 THE COURT: Mr. Garon, do you agree with the summary

Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-k.:,W ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 PagelD.649 Page 17 of 30
17
1 as stated?
2 MR. GARON: That's a correct recitation.
3 THE COURT: And the details are, of course, in the
4 written document, which you went over with your client,
5 answered questions, explained it to him and provided advice in
6 the ordinary course of representation, true?
7 MR. GARON: At length, yes.
8 THE COURT: At some length. And you had -- well,
9 that's the other question. Have you had ample time to do all
10 of that, right?
12 THE COURT: Do you agree with those things, Mr.
13 Freitas?
15 THE COURT: Your attorney explained these things to
16 you and answered your questions?
18 THE COURT: You had plenty of time to consider the
19 situation?
21 THE COURT: And you want to make this your agreement;
22 the terms and conditions, you want to embrace these terms and
23 conditions?
24 THE DEFENDANT: I do.
25 THE COURT: You do understand that the Government's

r0 ,r'\
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-k..;W ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 Pa~elD.650 Page 18 of 30
18
1 recommendation is only a recommendation. I may not follow it.
2 And if I do not follow it, that's just a judicial determination
3 and has no significance as to whether you have entered a proper
4 plea or waived rights or anything of that sort. There is no
5 change with respect to any of those things if I refuse to
6 accept the Government's recommendation. Do you understand
7 that?
8 THE DEFENDANT: Understood.
9 THE COURT: No sentence can exceed the statutory
10 maximum, however, which is the 60 months. Do you understand
11 that as well?
13 THE COURT: All right. So I'm going to state this for
14 you in academic terms and see if you agree with it.
15 You must be then in a situation recognizing these
16 things where you are prepared to accept a 60-month sentence if
17 that is what ultimately emerges from all of this. You don't
18 want that to happen, but basically you understand that that
19 could happen, and you've waived your right to appeal and to
20 challenge these things. So if that happens, that's just part
21 of what was contemplated here, true?
23 THE COURT: Has anyone -- no. Before I ask that, the
24 Government has just outlined and it's in the Rule 11 agreement
25 as well in your papers that you have agreed to provide

:~
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-R;:,W ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 PagelD.651 Page 19 of 30
19
1 assistance in the investigation or prosecution of people beyond
2 your just yourself. Beyond just truthfully admitting what you
3 did, you've agreed to provide assistance, which could include
4 testimony and it could include repeated testimony conceivably,
5 depending upon circumstances. You've agreed to cooperate in
6 that regard and to be straightforward and truthful, and you
7 hope to be substantially of assistance in legitimate
8 governmental investigation and prosecution efforts. Do I state
9 that correctly?
11 THE COURT: Yes? And you are hoping for a government
12 recommendation of a sentence in recognition of the truthful
13 assistance that you intend to provide, true?
15 THE COURT: And once again, similar to other kinds of
16 sentencing recommendations, ultimately if the Government does
17 come to recommend a more lenient or mitigated sentence, it will
18 be put on my desk, it will be for me to decide and that's my
19 decision alone. Although, I will, I will commit to this as I
20 am required to do, I will carefully consider the Government's
21 recommendation and give it substantial weight. Do you
22 understand those, the provisions that I've just suggested?
23 THE DEFENDANT: I understand.
24 THE COURT: Has anyone tried to force you or threaten
25 you to persuade you to plead guilty?

(""'-,\
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-k.::iW ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 PayelD.652 Page 20 of 30

20
2 THE COURT: Has anyone done anything you think is
3 improper, unethical, out of line or anything of that sort in
4 order to persuade you?
6 THE COURT: And the arrangements are as they have been
7 summarized here. I've heard, maybe not each and every tiny
8 detail about the arrangements, but the outline of the
9 arrangements I've heard, this is what's in your mind, what's
10 motivating you in the direction of a plea of guilty by
11 negotiation; is that correct?
13 THE COURT: So there's no other hidden deals, in other
14 words, nothing else under the table?
16 THE COURT: You're satisfied with your attorney and
17 his advice?
18 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I am.
19 THE COURT: Do you think he has done what an attorney
20 ought to do in order to prepare you for this decision?
21 THE DEFENDANT: He has.
22 THE COURT: And let us re-confirm that this is your
23 decision?
24 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it's my decision.
25 THE COURT: To the charge contained in the single

r0
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-f-....,I/V ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 Pa~t:ID.653 Page 21 of 30
21
1 count of the charge in the information, conspiracy to commit
2 federal program bribery, how do you plead, sir?
3 THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.
4 THE COURT: I need to go over with you what is
5 required in order to be guilty of this offense, and let's make
6 sure that the facts stack up.
7 In order for you to be guilty of conspiracy there are
8 two things that have to be true. First, there has to be a
9 conspiracy. Second, you have to be part of it. If those two
10 things are true, then you're a co-conspirator, you're guilty of
11 conspiracy aimed at the commission of the underlying offense
12 that's identified in the count.
13 In order for there to be a conspiracy, there has to be
14 an agreement between or among at least two people, or it could
15 be three or four or 100, but at least two people who wrongfully
16 come together and agree to at least try to commit a crime. If
17 they do that, then a conspiracy exists.
18 Then if that, if a conspiracy exists or is in the
19 process of being formed, it also has to be true that you were
20 part of it. In order to be part of the conspiracy, it's
21 necessary that you know what's going on; at least in general
22 terms, know that there is something illegal afoot or in the
23 making, and you, knowing that, have to agree to be a part of
24 it, voluntarily and knowingly and intentionally become a part
25 of the conspiracy with the intent that you move it along or

Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-k,:;W ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 PagelD.654 Page 22 of 30
22
1 move toward successful completion. Successful completion is
2 not necessary to prove a conspiracy, but the concept is that
3 it's moving forward toward a completion with your effort. And
4 if that's true, then you are a participant in the conspiracy.
5 The third thing that has to be true for, for a
6 conspiracy offense of this kind to exist beyond there being a
7 conspiracy and you being part of it, at least one of the
8 co-conspirators, during the term of the conspiracy, for the
9 purpose of moving the conspiracy forward, has to have done
10 something observable, something beyond mere conversation. It's
11 called an overt act. It doesn't have to be an illegal act, but
12 it has to be some act during the conspiracy that's designed to
13 further or to advance the conspiracy in some fashion.
14 Do you understand those things about conspiracy?
16 THE COURT: The conspiracy in this case was aimed at
17 federal program bribery, which consists of the following, if it
18 were to be proven as a completed offense:
19 You would have to have been an agent of a local
20 government.
21 You would have to have wrongfully agreed to accept
22 something of value, doing so with the intent to be influenced
23 in connection with a transaction with the local government of
24 which you were an agent.
25 The transaction must have involved something of value

I' ,7\
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-h:vVV ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 Pa\,JelD.655 Page 23 of 30
23
1 greater than 5,000 -- equal to or greater than $5,000.
2 And it finally must be true that the local entity, the
3 governmental entity of which you were an agent, must have
4 received more than $10,000, or perhaps equal to $10,000 but
5 greater than that in federal assistance in a one-year period
6 either before or after the time of the offense conduct.
7 You understand what's necessary to be true and so
8 forth?
10 THE COURT: The facts that would be necessary to prove
11 an underlying offense then, yes?
13 THE COURT: Are those adequately stated, as far as Mr.
14 Gardey is concerned for the Government?
16 THE COURT: And Mr. Garon, I correctly stated those?
18 THE COURT: All right. So you've proffered a plea of
19 guilty, Mr. Freitas. The factual basis that is included in the
20 Rule 11 agreement I am going to use as an outline to determine
21 that you acknowledge the truth of these things. You've already
22 signed off on it and acknowledged the truth in writing, but
23 let's go over it on the record as required.
24 In 2015, you were an elected trustee of Macomb
25 Township in Macomb County, correct?
UNITED STATES vs. FREITAS, 0-4 - 16-20732

(' 0
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-k...,w ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 Pay~ID.656 Page 24 of 30
24
10 ·THE DEFENIJANT ;
11 ~}{:change .for your
12
13 ~thsl 6.ohdudt ;of' that
14 $tateroent, sir?
16 THE COURT: And that was facilitated by the fact that
17 you had an employment relationship with that contracting
18 company, correct?
20 THE COURT: In that position, you received pay from
21 time to time, legitimate pay for legitimate work, I presume in
22 some respect; is that true?
24 THE COURT: That's not in the factual statement but it
25 sounded like that. So your offer to help that company

r0 /\
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-l\,.;VV ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 Pa!:lelD.657 Page 25 of 30
25
1 wrongfully with the Township was assisted by your position of
2 employment with the company, true?
4 exEJcuti ve .at the
5 :that ¢orrect? You approached him or he
6 JnfIµence in. conducting
10
11
12 :Jt~elJr Cciid, yol;l, 'have an agreement

13 <3rrtpJoyEJr ~wbu'.[d extend to you loans
14 t:
'.o. yol,ir eni:f:5~loyment th?'t
15 Tri e;xcharige· :for the
16 revel~tiori the. conti0ct?
17 THE' PEFENDAN'F: .Yef;f.
18 MR. GARON: Thank you.
19 THE COURT: So you received -- and when Mr. Garon used
20 the word "loans," he put a verbal emphasis on that which
21 sounded like quotation marks around the word "loan." They were
22 loans that were going to be understood as not to be paid back;
23 am I correct about that, Mr. Freitas? Did you understand that
24 such advances or loans were --

,0 r'\,
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-~;:,W ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 Pa\:lelD.658 Page 26 of 30
26
3 THE .DEFl::;15JDANT t ..
4 ',['HE COUE.'T: The in$.ide inforrnc;i.tion .that you were
5 .J<.;in.d.: Qf. information? Wh.at
9 would be an: approp:tiate ioid,
10 THE CQQR'f: You ~rrE3w SQIDEolth:j.ng ab6ut., about how .the
11
12
13
14
15
16 .TBE GQQRT: And some t;he J5ids had J:)eEoln unsealed and
17
18
19
20
21
22 information givE3rf from: a 'who was on the
23
24 THE COURT: Or who might have had better specific
25 knowledge about the way the bids were coming in?

0 0
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-K0\/V ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 Pa:::,c:ID.659 Page 27 of 30
27
2 THE COURT: Okay. So the bids had not been unsealed
3 publicly, but they, there was knowledge within the elected
4 officials apparently?
6 THE COURT: As to how the bidding was going?
7 THE DEFENDANT: Correct.
8 THE COURT: And that's 'the kind of information you
9 passed on to t1)¢ executive at your cqmpax:i:y?
10
11 its financial
12
13
14 THE COURT~. ,A.pd: acquired the. contract?
15 '1'HE PEFENDANT:. Yes.
16 they. knew. to be thE;;
17
18
19
20 THE' C:OtJRT:: Your factual basis says that the company
21 executive offered, and yob .·a¢:<;;eptea $7,500 for your
22 Is that a correct statement?
23
24 THE COURT: It was purported as a loan, but was
25 actually a bribe, true?

~
I !
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-k0W ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 PayelD.660 Page 28 of 30
28
2 THE COURT: Is it also correct that in the calendar
3 year 2015, you acknowledge that Macomb Township had received in
4 excess of $10,000 in federal assistance?
5 MR. GARON: We would so stipulate, your Honor.
6 THE COURT: I mean, that's a fact that may not have
7 been within your personal you don't have to know that, but
8 it has to be a fact. You acknowledge that's a fact?
10 THE COURT: All right. Is that an adequate
11 acknowledgment of the factual basis for the plea at issue?
13 THE COURT: Mr. Gardey believes. Mr. Garon believes
14 so as well?
15 MR. GARON: I'm satisfied, your Honor.
16 THE COURT: And with respect to the Rule 11 colloquy,
17 the cautions and the explanations and so forth, is that all
18 adequate as far as you're concerned, Mr. Garon?
19 MR. GARON: It is.
20 THE COURT: I agree. And Mr. Freitas, your proposed
21 guilty plea is supported by the facts that you've acknowledged
22 here in my discussion with you and with Mr. Garon's help. You
23 know what you're doing. You're acting competently and
24 voluntarily in offering this plea, I believe.
UNITED STATES vs. FREITAS, 0-4 - 16-20732

/~ 0
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-t-;;,W ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 Pa~elD.661 Page 29 of 30
29
1 THE COURT: And I am prepared to accept it. And this
2 is the point at which i t becomes permanent. Are you sure you
3 want me to accept the plea as offered?
4 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor.
5 THE COURT: I accept the defendant's plea to the
6 single count of the Third Superseding Information, conspiracy
7 to commit federal program bribery. The defendant is adjudged
8 guilty of that offense. The plea agreement itself is taken
9 under advisement pending sentencing.
10 And we will set sentencing for October 5, 2017, 1:30
11 p.m. I think that's a Thursday, if I recollect from my case
12 manager, and that will be here. And bond will be continued,
13 assuming the Government concurs with that suggestion.
14 MR. GARDEY: Yes. Yes, your Honor.
15 MR. GARON: No objection.
16 THE COURT: And is there any other matter to come
17 before the Court, Mr. Gardey, for the Government?
18 MR. GARDEY: No, your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Garon, for the
20 defendant?
21 MR. GARON: No, sir.
22 THE COURT: All right. That's all. Thank you.
23 THE CLERK: All rise. Please remain standing.
24 Court is in recess.
25 (Proceedings concluded, 2:16 p.m.)

r'\.
I
Case 2:16-cr-20732-RHC-hoW ECF No. 119 filed 10/11/17 Pa\:JelD.662 Page 30 of 30

30
2 * * *
3
4 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
6 As a Federal Official Court Reporter for the United
7 States District Court, appointed pursuant to provisions
8 of Title 28, United States Code, Section 753, I do hereby
9 certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript of
10 the proceedings in the above-entitled cause on the date
11 hereinbefore set forth.
12
13
14 Dated this 1st day of June, 2017.
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

Cusumano v. Bucci, Macomb Circuit Case No. 2018-3035-CZ. Complaint For Quo Warranto Filed Complete W - Exs A-D

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cusumano v. Bucci, Macomb Circuit Case No. 2018-3035-CZ. Complaint For Quo Warranto Filed Complete W - Exs A-D

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I

Approved, SCAO Original - Court 2nd copy - Plaintiff

Plaintiffs attorney, bar no., addr1~s. and telephone no.

*This summons is invalid unless served on or before its expiration date.

General Civil Cases

!Docket no. I Judge Bar no.

Date ig ture of attorney/plaintiff

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MACOMB

FRANK A. CUSUMANO, JR., Case No. 2018 - ~3S"- CZ

1. The Plaintiff, Frank A. Cusumano, Jr. ("CUSUMANO"), is a resident of the Township

of Macomb, County of Macomb, State of Michigan.

2. Defendant, Dino Bucci ("BUCCI"), is an individual and resident of the Township of

office known as Trustee of Macomb Township.

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

3. Jurisdiction is vested in this Court pursuant to MCR 3.306(A)(2).

State of Michigan which is governed under MCL 41.2 et seq.

member of the Macomb Township Board of Trustees, the legislative branch of

7. On or about November 8, 2016, BUCCI, was re~elected to the public office of

Macomb Township Trustee.

Election Law on or about January 1, 2021.

9. Before November 8, 2016 BUCCI accepted "bribes," more specifically alleged

hereinafter, as the term "bribe" is defined at MCL 750.118

before BUCCl's assumption of the current term of office of Trustee of Macomb

and "forever disqualified" him from holding public office.

Letter to MAG 04/30/2018.

600.4501 and MCR 3.306(B)(3)(b).

A. SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE I (2014)

Christopher Sorrentino and/or a company controlled by Sorrentino ("Sorrentino"),

related to the transaction this "bribe" is referenced hereinafter as the "SORRENTINO-

BUCCI BRIBE I."

by payment under the SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE I.

would be steered to Sorrentino by BUCCI, a sitting member of the Macomb Township

-10/03/2017- Rule 11 Plea, USA v. Christopher Sorrentino, Case No. 2:17-cr-20568

were cashed on November 5, 2014. Id., p.3.

I.R.S. reporting requirements under federal law. Id, p. 4.

21. The SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE I transaction was a bribe as defined at MCL

the public office of Trustee of Macomb Township.

8. SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE II (2015)

actually performed by another company. Id. p. 4.

2015 referenced hereinafter as the "SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE 11."

public office of Trustee of Macomb Township.

C. THE FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE (2015)

confidential bidding information from Macomb Township Departments and records

and/or representative of Rizzo Environmental Services (RIZZO) at the time.

20732, ED Mich., Rule 11 Plea Agreement, p. 3.

2016-cr-20732, ED Mich., 06/01/2017, Tr. p.24, II. 11-15.

32.0n June 1, 2017, FREITAS attested as follows:

THE COURT: No? Then what was your assistance then,

THE DEFENDANT [FREITAS]: Yes. Historic information and

THE COURT: Or who might have had better specific

THE DEFENDANT [FREITAS]: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. So the bids had not been unsealed

THE DEFENDANT [FREITAS}: Yes.

THE COURT: As to how the bidding was going?

THE DEFENDANT [FREITAS]: Correct.

THE COURT: And that's the kind of information you

THE DEFENDANT [FREITAS}: Yes.

THE COURT: Which the company used to its financial

THE DEFENDANT [FREITAS}: Yes.

THE COURT: And acquired the contract?

THE DEFENDANT [FREITAS}: Yes.

Emphasis added. Id. pp. 26-27.

waste removal contract.