Crawford Lewis DeKalb RICO Indictment

State Witness - lnv. W.e.
Nix
DKOA
No.10-CR2861 4
DEKALB COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
.• x ~~\: "~':~ '~':\~ "I, ~· I' MAY TERM 2010

\i ':~ .:
TIlE STATE
vs.
PATRICIA REID, a/k/a PAT POPE, all counts
ANTHONY VINCENT POPEa/k/a TONY POPE, counts 1-4
CRAWFORD LEWIS, counts 1-6
...~. COINTA MOODY, counts 1-5
D0201091-06
Ct. 1: Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
Conducting and Participating in an Enterprise Through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity
(O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4-(b)
Acquiring Property Through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity
(O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4(a»
Conspiracy to Participate in an Enterprise Through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity
(O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4 (c»
Conspiracy.to Acquire Property Through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity
(O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4 (c»
Ct 5: Theft by Taking By a Government Employee
(O.C.G.A. § 16-8-2)
Ct 6: Bribery
(O.C.G.A. § 16-10-2)
Ct 7: Falsifying Public Records

(O.C.G.A. § 45-11-1)
Bill.
Foreperson.
The Defendant, Patricia Pope, waives copy of the The Defendant, Crawford Lewis, waives copy of
Indictment, list of witnesses, full panel, formal the Indictment, list of witnesses, full panel, formal
arraignment, and pleads arraignment, and pleads
This the of - - - - - - 2 0 . This the of 20 .
District Attorney District Attorney
Defendant's Attorney Defendant's Attorney
Defendant Defendant
The Defendant, Vincent Anthony Pope, waives The Defendant, Cointa Moody, waives copy of the
copy of the Indictment, list of witnesses, full panel, Indictment, I ist of witnesses, full panel, formal
formal arraignment, and pleads arraignment, and pleads
This the of 20 This the of 20
District Attorney District Attorney
Defendant's Attorney Defendant's Attorney
Defendant Defendant
2
STATE OF GEORGIA, COlTNTY OF DEKALB
BILL OF INDICTMENT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAID COUNTY,
The Grand Jurors selected, chosen and sworn for the County ofDeKalb to wit:
1. Latisha G. Dear, Foreperson

2. Angels Denj am:hn 14. DaIia PalSi? IoI61rm€Hr
3. DOTT91 D~oee~~ek 15. Marjorie Heywood

4. Demetrius Mekale Carson 16. Barbara Ann Hill
5. Joan Clark 17. Dylan Olcott Keenan
6. Michael Osmond Davis 18. Reginald Locus
7. Shaleena Abron 19. Marion Mitchell
8. Adam Wendell Ellis 20. Denisea Lynn Patton
9. John Douglas Fry 21. Suzanne M. Semrad
10. Rochelle Leigh Gonzenbach 22. Neill A: Thompson, IV
11. Michael Goulding 23. Nicole Thompson
(J
12. Brenda K.Hale 24. Robert Waters
13. Je~iery R Harbin 25. Robert L. White, Jr.
26. SamafitQa Kate Wifl8](s;hJ. Enger
COUNT 1 7
PART I - THE NATURE OF THE CASE 8
PART II - DEFINITIONAL SECTION 10
A. Dejinitions /0
Addition: 10
Agenda Item: 10
Architect of Record: 10
Change Order (C/O): : 10
Competitive Sealed Bidding: 11
Competitive Sealed Proposals: 11
Design/Bid/Build: 11
Design/Build: 12
Georgia Competitive Award Statutes: 12
Notice of Award: 12
Public Works Construction: 12
Request For Proposal (RFP): 13
Responsible Bidder or Responsible Offeror: 13
Responsive Bidder or Responsive Offeror: 13
Scope of Work: 13
Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST): 13
Stated Cost Limitation: 14
B. GA Department ofEducation Policies /4

DOE Regulation 160.5-4.1O(I)(b): Code FED (1) 14
DOE Regulation 160-5-4.11(1)(b): Code FGAD 14
C. DeKalb County School System Policies and Regulations /5
DCSS Purchasing Policy: DJE 15
DCSS Facilities Projects Contracts Regulation: FGD-R 15
PART [11- THE ENTERPRISE 16
PART IV - THE DEFENDANTS 17
PARTV-THESCHEME 19
A. Background /9
1. General. 19
2. Employment of PAT POPE as CFO of A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 21
3. Employment of PAT POPE as COO of DCSS 22
B. Acts Involving Fraud 23
1. Background 23
2. Construction Projects 24
a. Columbia High School Project 25
1. Background 25
2. Fraud via Change Order #2 signed by CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE 25
3. Fraud via Change Order #3 signed by CRA WFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE 28
4. Fraud via "Extension" in Change Order #7 signed by CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT
POPE 29
5. Fraud via Deferred SPLOST II Contract Award signed by CRAWFORD LEWIS and
PAT POPE 31
6. Fraud via "Addendum #1" signed by CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE 33
7. Fraud via "Addendum #2" signed by CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE 35
8. Fraud via Errors and Omissions 35
b. McNair Cluster Elementary Project 37
1. Background and Overview 37
2. Termination of the Architect 38
3. PAT POPE changes the Criteria 39
4. PAT POPE holds Improper BAFO Meeting .4]

5. PAT POPE Manipulates Scoring ofOfferors .43
6. Money to TONY POPE 44
7. Concealment of TONY POPE's participation in the McNair Project .44
8. TONY POPE's Post-Award Efforts to Conceal His Participation .47
4
c. Mountain Industrial Center (MIC) Project .48
1. Background 48
2. PAT POPE fires the Architect of Record .48
3. Advertising One Scope of Work .49
4. PAT POPE limits Scope of Work 50
5. PAT POPE's misrepresentation to the Board of Education 51
6. Fraudulent Creation of "MIC II" 51
7. Misrepresentation to DCSS Counsel 52
8. Misrepresentation to DCSS Board 53
d. Arabia Mountain High School Project 53
1. Background 53
2. Forged tally sheets 54
3. Bribery of PAT POPE and CRAWFORD LEWIS 55
3. Other Acts 56
a. Benefit to PAT POPE 56
b. Bribery of PAT POPE and CRAWFORD LEWIS 56
c. Illegal Car Purchases 57
1. CRAWFORD LEWiS 57
2. PAT POPE 58
d. Improper Use of DCSS Purchasing Card 59
1. Theft: CRAWFORD LEWIS pays for personal vacation 59
2. Theft: CRAWFORD LEWIS pays for unauthorized personal activities 59
e. Theft: PAT POPE pays COINTA MOODY Overtime Pay for Personal Business 60
C. Acts Hindering the Criminal Investigation 6/

1. CRAWFORD LEWIS appoints the target of the investigation, PAT POPE, to respond to District
Attorney's subpoenas 61
2. CRA WFORD LEWIS gives False Statements 63
3. CRAWFORD LEWIS attempts to stop the District Attorney's Office criminal investigation 64
PART VI - ACTS OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY 66
A. Columbia High School 66
1. PAT POPE 66
a. Theft by Taking, a.C.G.A. * 16-8-2 66
b. Acts Involving Theft 67
c. False Statements, a.C.G.A. * 16-1 0-20 69
d. Mail Fraud, 18 U.S.C. §1341 70
e. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666 71
2. TONY POPE 72
a. Theft by Taking, a.C.G.A. *16-8-2 72
a. Thefts and Acts Involving Theft 74
b. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666 75
B. McNair Elementary School 76
1. PAT POPE 76
c. Mail Fraud, 18 U.S.C. §1341 78
d. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666 79
2. TONY POPE 80
c. Wire Fraud, 18 U.S.C. *1343 82
3. CRA WFORD LEWiS 85
3. COINTA MOODY 86
a. Fraudulent Documents within the Jurisdiction of a Political Subdivision a.e.G.A. * 16-10-20 86
C. Mountain Industrial Center 87
1. PAT POPE 87
a. Theft by Taking, a.C.G.A. § 16-8-2 87
d. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666 89
2. TONY POPE 90
5
a. Theft by Taking, a.C.G.A. §16-8-2 90
b. Acts Involving "rheft 91
a. Acts Involving Theft 92
b. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666 93
D. Arabia Mountain High School 94
1. PAT POPE 94
a. Forgery - First Degree, a.C.G.A. §16-9-1 94
b. False Statements and Writings, a.c.G.A. §16-1 0-20 95
c. Bribery, a.C.G.A. § 16-1 0-2 96
d. Bribery under 18 U.S.C. §666 97
a. Bribery, a.C.G.A. §16-1 0-2 98
b. Bribery under 18 U.S.C. §666 99
E. Other Crinlinal Acts 100
b. False Statements, a.C.G.A. § 16-1 0-20 10 I
c. Bribery, a.C.G.A. §16-1 0-2 102
d. Bribery under 18 U.S.C. §666 103
e. Hindering of a Law Enforcement Officer, a.e.G.A. §16-1 0-24 104
f. Tampering with Evidence, a.c.G.A. §16-1 0-94 105
2. PAT POPE 107
b. Bribery, a.C.G.A. §16-10-2 108
c. Bribery under 18 U.S.C. §666 109
d. Hindering of a Law Enforcement Officer, a.e.G.A. §16-1 0-24 11 0

e. Tampering with Evidence, a.e.G.A. §16-10-94 112
3. TONY POPE 114
a. Hindering of a Law Enforcement Officer, a.e.G.A. §16-1 0-24 114
b. Tampering with Evidence, a.e.G.A. §16-1O-~4 115
4. COINTA MOODY 116
b. Bribery, a.C.G.A. §16-10-2 117
c. Bribery under 18 U.S.C. §666 118
COUNT 2 119
COUNT 3 120
COUNT 4 121
COUNT 5 122
COUNT 6 123
COlfNT 7 124
EXHIBIT LIST 125
6
COUNT 1
The GRAND JURORS aforesaid, in the name of and on behalf of the citizens of the State of
Georgia, charge and accuse
PATRICIA REID, a/kJa PAT POPE,
ANTHONY VINCENT POPE a/kJa TONY POPE,
CRAWFORD LEWIS, and
COINTA MOODY
individually and as parties concerned in the commission of a crime, with the offense of
VIOLATION OF RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS

ACT -- CONDUCTING AND PARTICIPATING IN AN ENTERPRISE THROUGH A
PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY,
in violation of O.C.G.A. 16-14-4(b), for the said accused persons, in the County of DeKalb
and State of Georgia, between the 10th day of October, 2005, and the 5th day of May,
2010, did unlawfully conduct and participate in the enterprise alleged below through the
pattern of racketeering activity, as more particularly described below,
contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.
DEKALB SUPERIOR COURT

GWENDOLYN KEYES FLEMING, District Attorney
7
Part I - The Nature Of The Case
Beginning in 2006, Defendants CRAWFORD LEWIS (the former Superintendent of
the DeKalb County School System (hereinafter DCSS)), PATRICIA REID a/kJa PAT
POPE (the former Chief Operations Officer ofDCSS), TONY POPE (Pat Pope's then
husband prior to their annulment on April 27, 2010 and business partner), and COINTA
MOODY (Pat Pope's Administrative Assistant), joined in a conspiracy, the primary
objective of which was to steal money and other property from DCSS.
Rather than operating in the best interests of DeKalb County's children, the
defendants stole or facilitated the theft of millions of dollars, performed or approved payment
for sub-standard work, blocked legitimate contractors from receiving or completing
contracts, and manipulated projects to meet their own unlawful objectives.
The defendants' racketeering activity primarily concentrated on the manipulation of
bidding, contracting and payment processes concerning the following DCSS construction
projects: Columbia High School, McNair Cluster Elementary School, Mountain Industrial
Center, and Arabia Mountain High School. This activity enabled TONY POPE to obtain
payments in connection with projects on which he was not eligible to work due to the conflict
of interest that, in part, flowed from his marriage and business relationship at the time to
DCSS's Chief Operations Officer PAT POPE. In order to get millions of dollars to TONY
POPE, and through him to PAT POPE, which neither of them could not lawfully receive,
the defendants falsified documents, authorized illegal payments, misrepresented material
facts to the DeKlab County School System Board of Education (hereinafter Board)
concealed material facts from the DCSS Board, and manipulated various aspects of the
bidding, contracting and payment processes for these projects.
8
The defendants also engaged in racketeering activity such as obtaining payment for
improper and fraudulent travel, lodging, and the solicitation and receipt of bribes from
architects and contractors.
Soon after the District Attorney commenced an investigation into the defendants'
misconduct, the defendants expanded the scope of their racketeering activity to include
additional acts such as tampering with evidence, obstruction ofjustice, and giving false
statements to investigators.
In order to avoid confusion and because terms related to construction law are used
throughout the indictment, a Definitions section is included below.
9
PART II - Definitional Section
A. Definitions
Addition:
The square footage of room floor space for instructional or other purposes added to an
existing educational facility, whether physically connected thereto or a separate
structure located on the same site.
Agenda Item:
The official document used to secure a presentation slot at a DCSS Board of
Education meeting and which provides pertinent information about the request to be
made to the Board.
Architect of Record:
The architect in charge of all aspects of architectural and engineering services and
who provides the seal and certification on all drawings, plans and payment
applications during the course of a project.
Change Order (C/O):
An alteration, addition, or deduction from the original scope of work identified in
contract documents that address changes wanted by an Owner and/or unforeseen
conditions necessary for project completion.
10
Competitive Sealed Bidding:
One of two methods for soliciting public works construction contracts whereby the
contract award is based upon the lowest responsive, responsible bid in conformance
with the provisions of subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. §36-91-21.
Competitive Sealed Proposals:
One of two methods for soliciting public works construction contracts whereby the
contract is awarded to the proposal that is determined to be the most advantageous to
the governmental entity based upon the evaluation of published criteria in
conformance with the provisions of subsection (c) ofO.C.G.A. §36-91-21.
Design/BidlBuild:
A construction delivery method where the Owner first contracts with an architect and
only after drawings/plans have reached a certain point of completion does the Owner
then enters into a separate contract with a construction contractor to build the
structure/perform the construction work. Although these are two separate contracts,
both the architect employed by the Owner and the construction contractor employed
by the Owner are required to work together during the construction phase of the
project to ensure proper construction and timely completion of the project.
II
DesignlBuild:
A construction delivery method where the Owner has one contract with a
designer/architect and a construction contractor who have teamed up to design and
build the project simultaneously as a single entity. This construction delivery method
is considered a fast-tracking method for designing and building a structure.
Georgia Competitive Award Statutes:
Statutes under Title 36, Chapters 10 and 91 of the Official Code of Georgia that
address the legal requirements for the funding, advertisement, selection of contractors
either through bids or proposals, and awarding of construction contracts for public
works construction projects costing $100,000.00 or more.
Notice of Award:
The official written notification from Owner to an architect and/or contractor that
he/she had either the most responsible, responsive bid OR the most advantageous
proposal and has won the contract award for a project.
Public Works Construction:
The building, altering, repairing, improving, or demolishing of any public structure or
building or other public improvements of any kind to any public real property other
than those projects covered by Chapter 4 of Title 32 of the Official Code of Georgia.
This term does not include the routine operation, repair, maintenance of existing
structures, buildings, or real property.
12
Request For Proposal (RFP):
A process in which construction companies or architectural firms will submit
information in order to obtain a contract with a government agency.
Responsible Bidder or Responsible Offeror:
A person or entity that has submitted a bid or proposal and that has the capability in
all respects to perform fully and reliably the contract requirements.
Responsive Bidder or Responsive Offeror:
A person or entity that has submitted a bid or proposal that conforms in all material
respects to the requirements set forth in the invitation for bids or request for
proposals.
Scope of Work:
The parameters of the work for a construction project that are required by the contract
documents.
Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST):
The collection of sales tax revenues for a specified period of time upon the approval
of a referendum by voters for which the money is used to fund the construction and
renovation of education facilities and/or to retire bond debt incurred from expenses
associated with the construction and renovation of educational facilities.
13
Stated Cost Limitation:
The budgeted cost for the complete design and construction of a project.
B. GA Department of Education Policies
DOE Regulation 160.S-4.10(l)(b): Code FED (1)
"Local school systems shall obtain the services of architects and engineers who hold
current Georgia registration to design all school facility construction and or
modifications."
DOE Regulation 160-S-4.11(I)(b): Code FGAD
"Local boards of education shall specify a flat fee in the contract(s) executed for
architectural services on state capital outlay construction projects. State
participation in architectural fees cannot exceed a total of six percent of the eligible
state cost limitation. The maximum amount eligible for state participation for
architectural design fees shall not exceed four percent of the stated cost limitation for
the project. The maximum amount eligible for state participation for architectural
oversight during the construction phase of the project shall not exceed two percent of
the state cost limitation for the project." (emphasis added).
14
C. DeKalb County School System Policies and Regulations
DCSS Purchasing Policy: DJE
1 (A). "Purchases for the DeKalb County School Systenl shall be made on the basis of
quality, price, and service. With the exceptions provided in this policy, acquisition of
all goods and services shall be subject to the following limits except when a clear
emergency exists or a particular item may be obtained fronl only one known source.
Proper documentation shall be maintained regarding all such exceptions."
I(A)(l): $5,000 or less; made with effort to provide the least expense to the
Board
I(A)(2): Greater than $5,000, but $10,000 or less; two verbal quotations (if obtainable)
I(A)(3): Greater than $10,000, but $25,000 or less; two or more written
quotations (if obtainable)I(A)(4): Greater than $25,000; awarded only after
public advertisement for bid in, at least, two issues of the official organ of the
DeKalb County
I(B)(3): "purchases of services or goods from budgeted funds with a value exceeding
$50,000 shall be made by the Chief Financial Officer or designee(s) upon the
approval of the Board of Education."
DCSS Facilities Projects Contracts Regulation: FGD-R
"The standard form of agreement between the owner and the contractor, engineer,
and/or architect, with the approval of the Board, is executed by the Superintendent.
Payment and Performance Bonds are required on all construction projects.
15
PART III - The Enterprise
DeKalb County School System is a governmental entity established and formed
under the laws of the State of Georgia. DCSS constitutes an "enterprise" as defined by
O.C.G.A. 16-14-3 (6) (hereinafter "the enterprise").
16
PART IV - The Defendants
1. CRAWFORD LEWIS, at times pertinent to this indictment, was an employee of
the enterprise. Specifically, CRAWFORD LEWIS was the Superintendent ofDCSS from
2005 to 2010, a role which was the highest ranking and highest paid position in the DeKalb
County School Systen1 with ultimate accountability for all matters within DCSS.
2. PAT POPE, at times pertinent to this indictment, was an employee of the
enterprise, DCSS. She served as its Chief Operations Officer (COO) and in that capacity
supervised the DCSS construction program; and the maintenance and repair of all structures.
At times pertinent to this indictment, she held herself out to be married to TONY
POPE, was his business partner, and served as:
• Chief Financial Officer (hereinafter CFO) and Secretary of A. VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC. from April 2005 to October 2007 with a principal office address of
1901 Montreal Road Tucker, GA;
• CFO and Secretary of VINCENT POPE ARCHITECTS, INC. a related Florida Corporation,
from August 17,2006 until July 9,2008 with a principal n1ailing address of 1901
Montreal Road Tucker, GA.
• Registered Agent for Anthony Pope's company P2 HOLDINGS, LLC which utilized her
home address as the registered office, from September 2005 to May 16, 2008;
• Partner with ANTHONY POPE in MANAGING PARTNERS PM, LLC from September 12,
2006 to May 16, 2008;
Additionally, PAT POPE shared joint checking accounts with TONY POPE in which
she received and retained funds paid to A. VINCENT POPE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. by DCSS.
17
3. TONY POPE is an architect. He is also the President and Registered Agent for A.
VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC; MANAGING PARTNERS PM, LLC; and, VINCENT POPE
ARCHITECTS, INC. He held himself out to be married to PAT POPE and was her business
partner at times pertinent to this indictment.
4. COINTA MOODY, at times pertinent to this indictment, was an employee of the
ncss. She served as the Administrative Assistant to PAT POPE.
18
PART V - The Scheme
A. Background
1. General
The mission of the DeKalb County School System is to educate the children of
DeKalb County. In order to accomplish this purpose, among other things, the school system
builds, operates and maintains buildings, as well as an automotive fleet. The money to
operate and maintain these assets comes from several sources including, but not limited to:
Special Purpose Local Option Sales Taxes (hereinafter SPLOST), DeKalb County, the State
of Georgia, and the Federal government. These revenue sources aggregate to hundreds of
nlillions of dollars.
As the most senior members of the administration ofDCSS, eRAWFORD LEWIS
and PAT POPE were fiduciaries of this public money. Statutes exist at the county, state, and
federal levels governing how the money given to DCSS is to be spent and how it is not to be
spent. These laws help ensure that the public is getting the best value for its tax money and
prevent fraud, waste, and misuse.
At the federal level, for example, 18 U.S.C § 666 prohibits, in pertinent part,
employees and managers of a political subdivision that receives, in anyone year period,
benefits in excess of $1 0,000 of federal funds from embezzling, stealing, obtaining by fraud,
or converting to their own use property that is valued at Five Thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or
more. Since DCSS receives in excess ofTen Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) of federal funds
each year, its managers and employees are prohibited from engaging in those illegal
activities. That law prohibits fraud of any sort which exceeds Five Thousand dollars
($5,000.00), regardless of whether that fraud is directly linked to the federal funds received.
19
18 U.S.C § 666 further prohibits these same personnel from "agreeing to corruptly
solicit or accept anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in
connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization,
government, or agency involving any thing of value of$5,000 or more ...." As such, the role
of fiduciary is expanded to govern, not just the handling of money, but also the solicitation
and receipt of gifts.
At the State level, examples of statutes that prevent the misuse of public funds are the
Competitive Award Statutes, O.C.G.A. § 36-91-1 et seq. One purpose of competitive award
statutes is to ensure all contractors an equal opportunity to bid for, or make an offer on,
school projects so that friends, family members of governmental agents, and others do not
have an unfair advantage in the process. O.C.G.A. § 36-91-21 (f) specifically prohibits any
n1ember of a governmental entity who issues a public works construction contract, from
receiving, either directly or indirectly, any part of the payor profit arising out of any such
contract.
At the county level, DCSS Board Policy DJE, known as the Purchasing Policy
provides restrictions and oversight on purchases of goods and services made on behalf of the
school district. (See Exhibit A).' For example, pursuant to DCSS Board Policy DJE, the
authority to obligate DCSS funds to an agency outside of DCSS, at the time relevant to this
indictment, was vested in the Superintendent or his designees. Likewise, similar to the State
Competitive Award Statutes and at times pertinent to this indictment, DCSS Board Policy
DJE contained a Competitive Procurement Process. 2 This particular Board policy required all
purchases and contracts for goods and services exceeding $25,000 be awarded only after
I All Exhibits are attached and incorporated herein by reference.

2 OCSS Board Policy OlE.
20
public advertisement. 3 This public advertisement allowed several companies the equal
opportunity to bid and win the contract under consideration. In addition to the statutes and
rules previously mentioned, numerous other statutes exist such as statutes involving
Racketeering; Theft; Bribery; Mail Fraud; Wire Fraud; and False Statements which prohibit
the fraud and misappropriation of public funds by public servants.
2. Employment of PAT POPE as CFO of A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Prior to her employment with DCSS, PAT POPE worked for TONY POPE's
company, "A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.," as the Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary of the corporation. On April 15, 2005, and during PAT POPE '8 employment with
her husband's company, DCSS awarded TONY POPE an architectural contract for
ColuITlbia High School, (hereinafter Columbia Project)(See Exhibit B), to design the career
technology and auditorium additions (hereinafter Additions 4) and to replace the HVAC
system, ceiling tiles, and light fixtures (hereinafter HVAC and replacements) as well. This
contract, as required by the Georgia Department of Education Regulation 160-5-4.11 (I)(b),
was a fixed-priced architectural contract in the amount of Three Hundred Twenty-Six
Thousand Three Hundred Sixty-Four dollars ($326,364.00). A fixed-price architectural
contract is a contract where both parties agree upon a certain price and no deviation from that
price is permitted absent some verifiable proof of change in the scope of services to be
provided by the architect.
3 Board Policy OJE was changed in 20 I O.
4 Additions refers to the square footage of room floor space for instructional or other purposes added to an
existing educational facility, whether physically connected thereto or a separate structure located 011 the same
site.
21
In the construction industry changes to the initial contract are sometimes made. When
that happens, a document called a "Change Order" is executed between the party contracting
for the service and the party providing the service. A Change Order is an alteration, addition,
or deduction from the original scope of work as defined in the contract documents to address
changes or unforeseen conditions necessary for the completion of the projects to DCSS.
Documentation is required to support the validity of the Change Order, specifically the
documentation must justify the additional architectural services required of TONY POPE.
Prior to her employment with DCSS, PAT POPE negotiated a valid Change Order
(hereinafter Change Order #1) for the Columbia High School Project in the amount of
Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Thirteen dollars ($15,513.00) on behalf of A. VINCENT POPE
& ASSOCIATES, INC. The negotiations for this valid Change Order # 1 demonstrate the degree
of detail required by DCSS. (See Exhibits C t - C 2 ). PAT POPE provided these documents
to DCSS. This particular negotiation demonstrates PAT POPE's familiarity with the terms
of the contract TONY POPE held with DCSS. Additionally, it demonstrates her familiarity
with the necessity of providing supporting documentation and rationale necessary to verify a
Change Order's validity.
3. Employment of PAT POPE as COO of ncss
Because TONY POPE already held a contract with DCSS, PAT POPE and TONY
POPE met with CRAWFORD LEWIS and DCSS Attorney Stan Hawkins prior to her
employment as COO for DCSS. At that time, all parties agreed that due to the conflict of
interest, and in order to comply with the Competitive Award Statutes, TONY POPE could
complete his current Colun1bia contract but he would no longer be allowed to work on any
22
future DCSS construction projects in any capacity. In other words, TONY POPE could
finish what he was specifically contracted to perform for the previously agreed upon pay and
no more, but he could not perform any additional work on the Columbia Project or provide
any services on any other project within DCSS. With these restrictions, PAT POPE accepted
the job of COO of DCSS in October, 2005.
B. Acts Involving Fraud
1. Background
Within months of her initial employment and in her capacity as COO of DCSS, PAT
POPE circumvented the State of Georgia Competitive Award Statutes (specifically, O.C.G.A
§36-91-20; §36-91-21; §36-91-22), engaged in acts of theft and fraud, and used DCSS
resources in order to fraudulently obtain money from DCSS through TONY POPE's
involvement in construction contract awards for the Columbia Project.
PAT POPE, contrary to the conditions of her employment and in violation of the
law, used these same methods to expand TONY POPE'S involvement on the ColuITlbia
Project and to ensure his involvement on other DCSS projects, including McNair Cluster
Elementary School Project (hereinafter McNair Project) and Mountain Industrial Center
Project (hereinafter MIC Project). Additionally, she engaged in fraudulent activities after
awarding the Arabia Mountain High School Project (hereinafter Arabia Project). At times
she utilized her administrative assistant, COINTA MOODY, an employee of DCSS, to
further these and other activities.
CRAWFORD LEWIS also circun1vented the State of Georgia Competitive Award
Statutes by engaging in acts of theft and fraud in violation of the law by approving contracts,
23
Change Orders, and Addenda to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.' s contract; by failing
to disclose to the Board of Education the illegal activities of PAT POPE; and, by failing to
stop her illegal activities. PAT POPE and CRAWFORD LEWIS engaged in these acts
through the use of DCSS resources and for their own personal gain.
In regard to the Columbia, McNair, and MIC Projects, CRAWFORD LEWIS also
circumvented the State of Georgia Competitive Award Statutes and Board Policy in violation
of the law by engaging in acts of theft and fraud by approving contracts, Change Orders, and
Addenda that benefited A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; by failing to disclose to the
Board of Education the fraudulent activities of PAT POPE; and, by failing to stop her illegal
activities, thus facilitating her theft and fraudulent activities.
2. Construction Projects
Periodically, DCSS will award a contract for an overall construction project to a
particular contractor, paying it a lump sum and allowing it to choose an outside architect or
to use an in-house architect. This type of construction delivery n1ethod is known as a
"Design-Build" Project. In this construction delivery method, there is only one contract with
DCSS which is between DCSS and the contractor. At other times, DCSS will individually
and directly contract with an architect and a contractor to accomplish the project. This kind
of construction delivery method is known as a "Design-Bid-Build" Project. In this
construction delivery method, DCSS enters into two contracts - one with an Architect and
the other with a construction contractor.
24
PAT POPE and TONY POPE profited illegally from both of the above methods. 5
CRAWFORD LEWIS signed each contract, change order, and addenda benefiting TONY
POPE. These actions provided the authority for DCSS to issue the check directly to A.
VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. or companies employing A. VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC.
a. Columbia High School Project
1. Background
When TONY POPE entered into his architectural agreement with DCSS in April of
2005, the Columbia High School Project encompassed the design and construction of the
career technology and auditorium additions and the replacement of the HVAC system,
ceiling tiles, and light fixtures throughout the school.
DCSS used the Design-Bid-Build method for this project and first awarded an
architectural contract for the Columbia Project. As allowed by that delivery method, DCSS
then entered into two separate contracts - one with A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. a
construction contract with MERIT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
2. Fraud via Change Order #2 signed by CRAWFORD

LEWIS and PAT POPE
As previously noted, a Change Order is an alteration, addition, or deduction from the
original scope of work, as defined in the contract documents, to address changes or
5 In the Design-Bid-Build contract, DCSS would contract separately with A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Then, PAT POPE would manipulate TONY POPE's original contract expanding it beyond his original scope
of work in order for both of them to receive funds fraudulently. Under the Design-Build method, PAT POPE
would change the delivery method to Design-Build method to hide TONY POPE's involvement in that
particular project, since DCSS would not have a contract with the architect. Under the Design-Build method the
contractor chooses and pays the architect.
25
unforeseen conditions necessary for the completion of the project. Supporting documentation
must accompany a Change Order justifying the additional work to be done by the architect
before it can be approved. PAT POPE knew this. In July of 2005, prior to her employment
with DCSS, PAT POPE negotiated a Change Order to the Columbia architectural contract
on behalf of with A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. and submitted documents to DCSS
in order to validate the increase in fees called for by Change Order # 1.
On March 9, 2006, just over five months after PAT POPE was hired as COO of
DCSS, TONY POPE submitted a letter to DCSS officially requesting an increase in his
fixed architectural fees (See Exhibit D). He also copied PAT POPE on that letter. The next
day, PAT POPE and eRA WFO RD LEWIS each signed off on a Change Order #2 t6
increase A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.' s contract by the amount of One Hundred
Seventy-Six Thousand Six Hundred Ninety dollars ($176,690.00) (See Exhibit E)
(hereinafter Change Order #2). TONY POPE did not submit any documentation to support
the validity of this Change Order or the additional money to be paid to A. VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC. under Change Order #2. The only justification given by TONY POPE for
the Change Order was his false representation that the increase in the stated cost limitation6
of the overall Project justified an automatic increase in his architectural fees. 7 Not only was
there no provision in TONY POPE's contract allowing for such an increase but it also
violated Board policy, which required that all architectural contracts be fixed fee contracts
unless justified by additional services requirements necessary to complete the contract.
6A stated cost limitation is a budget cap on the cost of the construction project.
7As noted, increases in architectural fees based on increases to the stated cost limitation are allowed in
contracts which have been negotiated as such. TONY POPE's contract did not contain this provision.
26
TONY POPE's Change Order #2 did not offer any new services in exchange for his increase
in fee.
Pursuant to DCSS Purchasing Policy DJE, "purchases of services or non-consumable
products from budgeted funds with a value exceeding $50,000 shall be made by the Chief
Financial Officer or designee(s) upon the approval of the Board of Education" (Exhibit A,
see section (I) (A) (3)). PAT POPE did not submit Change Order #2, (Exhibit E), to the
Board of Education for approval as required. Instead, PAT POPE and CRAWFORD
LEWIS, authorized the Change Order, circumventing Board Policy. Change Order #2
fraudulently benefited TONY POPE, and indirectly benefited PAT POPE, in the amount of
One Hundred Seventy-Six Thousand Six Hundred Ninety dollars ($176,690.00). Not only
was no new work performed pursuant to Change Order #2, but this payment was for services
already included in A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 's original contract and covered in
his initial architectural fee. CRAWFORD LEWIS subsequently signed Change Order #2,
listing A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. as the recipient, thereby authorizing each check
issued to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
The firm RUBINO AND MCGEEHIN completed an internal audit report of DCSS
SPLOST II programs at the request of DCSS two months later on June 1, 2006, and
recommended that architects not be paid additional funds when they do no additional work.
CRAWFORD LEWIS incorporated this recommendation but failed to follow it in future
dealings with TONY POPE and A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Pursuant to a
construction program audit report, CRAWFORD LEWIS issued a memorandum August 7,
2006 to the Board stating "architect and engineer fees will no longer be based solely on a
percentage of the stated cost limitation or cost of construction." Additionally the
27
memorandum stated, "there will be no contract increases granted based on cost growth."
CRAWFORD LEWIS did not follow his own memorandum with regards to TONY
POPE's Columbia Project contract.
3. Fraud via Change Order #3 signed by CRAWFORD

LEWIS and PAT POPE
On July 27, 2006, TONY POPE submitted a letter to DCSS, with a copy to PAT
POPE requesting an increase to his architectural fees (See Exhibit F). Contrary to
CRAWFORD LEWIS' memorandum to the Board, CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT
POPE issued another Change Order (hereinafter Change Order #3) for A. VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC. unsupported by documentation, in the amount of Two Hundred Sixty Eight
Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Six dollars and fifty-four cents ($268,766.54). (See Exhibit
G). As with Change Order #2, TONY POPE did not claim any additional services were
needed to complete the project and did not submit any documents to support the validity of
Change Order #3. As before, TONY POPE claimed that the increase to his fee was
appropriate because of an increase in the stated cost limitation of the (related) HVAC
construction project awarded to MERIT. However, the contract signed between DCSS and A.
VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. already included designing the HVAC and Replacement
Project for a fixed fee, as referenced earlier in this section.
As with Change Order #2, TONY POPE performed no additional work for the Two
Hundred Sixty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Six dollars and Fifty-Four cents
($268,766.54) he was paid pursuant to Change Order #3. Collectively, Change Orders #2 and
#3 nlore than doubled A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.'S original fee for the Columbia
28
High School Project, despite no additional work being performed by him in exchange for
these additional fees. CRAWFORD LEWIS subsequently signed Change Order #3, listing
A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. as the recipient, thereby authorizing each check issued
to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
4. Fraud via "Extension" in Change Order #7 signed by

CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE
TONY POPE, on April 24, 2007, issued a memorandum to DCSS proposing an
"extension" to MERIT'S HVAC and Replacements Contract (See Exhibit H). In response to
TONY POPE's proposal, PAT POPE submitted an Agenda Item 8 to the Board of Education
on June 4, 2007, requesting authority to extend Merit's HVAC construction contract in the
amount of One Million Six Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-Six
dollars ($1,635,976.00) which was approved June 11, 2007 (See Exhibit I). In actuality, this
proposal was not an "extension" of any work previously contracted for by DCSS. Instead, the
proposal was an entirely new project that was unrelated to MERIT'S existing contract for
building the HVAC and Replacements Project. The scope of work for HVAC and
Replacement projects primarily occurs in the area between the ceiling and the roofing i.e.,
from the ceiling and up. In contrast, TONY POPE's "extension" proposal consisted of a
scope of work involving the area between the ceiling and the foundation of the building, i.e.,
8 As noted in the Definitions sections, an Agenda Item is an official document used to secure a presentation slot
at a Board of Education meeting and which provides pertinent information about the request to be made to the
Board.
29
from the ceiling down. This represented an entirely new scope of work MERIT was not
legally entitled to be awarded without going through proper competitive process. 9
The Competitive Award Statutes mandate that any renovation required under TONY
POPE's proposed extension was subject to certain requirements, due to its estimated value
and scope. 10 PAT POPE and eRAWFORD LEWIS circumvented these laws by approving
Change Order #7 to "extend" MERIT'S HVAC contract without advertising it as a new project
and awarding the work through a new contract.
PAT POPE facilitated this fraud by creating an Agenda Item and presented TONY
POPE's "proposal" to the Board for approval, misrepresenting it as an increase to MERIT'S
original HVAC contract to cover the next "phase of work". (See Exhibit I). In actuality, this
"extension" was a new project. This misrepresentation encompassed a multiplicity of frauds
that including, but not limited to:
• concealing TONY POPE's involvement or participation in the proposal from the
Board;
• concealing the benefit TONY POPE would receive from this fraudulent extension to
MERIT'S HVAC contract;
• falsely describing this extension as a new "phase of work" that could be added to
MERIT'S contract when what was actually being approved by the Board through this
Agenda Item was an entirely new, wholly unrelated scope of work in violation of the
competitive award process;
9 Since the "extension" was a new scope of work and unrelated to MERIT'S original scope of work, the
Competitive Award statutes direct that the new work be publicly advertised.
10 Among those statutes, O.C.G.A. 36-91-20(e) forbids utilizing change orders for work unrelated to a project's
original scope of work, and O.C.G.A. 36-91-22 mandates that any construction project valued at One Hundred
Thousand dollars $100,000.00 or more must be advertised and awarded in compliance with Competitive Award
Statutes.
30
• falsely representing to the Board through this Agenda Item that the work was part of
MERIT'S original HVAC and Replacements Contract.
Based upon PAT POPE's misrepresentations and presentation, the Board approved
the Agenda Item.
The following day on June 12,2007, PAT POPE and CRAWFORD LEWIS issued
an extension to the existing HVAC and Replacements Contract with MERIT in the form of
Change Order #7 and labeled it as being related DCSS project number 421-104 (See Exhibit
J). This is a change order for the HVAC project which does not include a proper HVAC
project number. The project number 421-104, on Change Order #7, as explained below, was
an important step in PAT POPE's effort to effectuate future fraud in regards to the Deferred
SPLOST II scope of work. 11
5. Fraud via Deferred SPLOST II Contract Award

signed by CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE
Having already awarded a portion of the Deferred SPLOST II work to MERIT, as
described above, PAT POPE argued just two months later, in August 2007, to award the rest
of the Deferred SPLOST II work contract to MERIT without utilizing the Competitive Award
Process. In the Agenda Item, she used the rationale that "since they already are working on
this project, it just makes sense to award them the rest of the work" (See Exhibit K).
Specifically, after illegally awarding MERIT the One Million Six Hundred Thirty-Five
Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-Six dollars ($1,635,976.00) included in Change Order #7
II Deferred SPLOST /I Work: a project at Columbia High School included in the SPLOST II referendum which
consisted of classroom and exterior renovations which, due to lack of funding or lack of time, were not awarded
and completed during the approved SPLOST II period.
31
(actually allocated for the new deferred work) PAT POPE argued to the Board that MERIT
should be awarded the Deferred SPLOST II work because it had already begun that work.
During her presentation to the Board, PAT POPE concealed the fact that this contract award
was not in compliance with the law. This was deceptive for two reasons: (1) as previously
noted, Change Order # 7 falsely and fraudulently expanded the HVAC contract into a new
project with a new scope of work - Deferred SPLOST II work; and (2) because it was now
new work and should have been bid through the Competitive Award Process.
DCSS, not realizing PAT POPE's deception, agreed and erroneously awarded MERIT
the Deferred SPLOST II project. This project was for the remaining Eight Million One
Hundred Seventy-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Seven dollars ($8,179,867.00)
allocated for the project. 12 On August 14, 2007, PAT POPE sent the Notice of Award to
MERIT (See Exhibit L.). CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE signed the contract
September 13,2007, with MERIT which lists VINCENT POPE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. on page
one of the contract. (See Exhibit L 2). TONY POPE received Six Hundred Twenty-Five
Thousand dollars ($625,0000.00) from MERIT (referenced below).
On May 16, 2008, the Georgia Department of Education notified PAT POPE and
CRAWFORD LEWIS that due to DCSS' failure to advertise the new scope of work, in
violation of the Competitive Award Process by giving this contract to MERIT, the State of
Georgia would not approve the construction documents, (See Exhibit M 1), which, in tum,
which prevented DCSS from receiving reimbursement of funds due to it in the amount of
One Million dollars ($1,000,000.00) (See Exhibit M 2). PAT POPE responded by writing a
letter to the Georgia Department of Education falsely representing that the DCSS
12 The stated cost limitation for the Deferred SPLOST II project totaled Ten Million One Hundred Thirty-Five
Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-Six dollars ($10, I35,976.00).
32
construction counsel had approved her decision not to advertise the new scope of work or
place the project out for bid or RFP (See Exhibit N). In fact, DCSS construction counsel
never gave this purported advice.
6. Fraud via "Addendum #1" signed by eRA WFORD

LEWIS and PAT POPE
Knowing that he was not eligible to perform any new architectural services for DCSS
as a condition of PAT POPE's employment with DCSS, and one month prior to his proposal
to extend MERIT'S contract (referenced above), PAT POPE solicited TONY POPE on
March 20, 2007 to provide a proposal for the architectural work related to the Deferred
SPLOST II work (See Exhibit Ot).TONY POPE responded on May 1, 2007 stating his fee
of Six Hundred Twenty Five Thousand dollars ($625,000.00)(See Exhibit O 2 ).
Although required to do so by Board Policy, PAT POPE failed to solicit other
architects to also provide proposals. In absence any competing proposals, PAT POPE then
issued an "Addendum" (hereinafter Addendun1 #1) on May 1,2007 to A. VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC. for an architectural services contract to include all architectural services
necessary for a new scope of work which she entitled Deferred SPLOST II Work (See
Exhibit P). "Addendum #1" lists the specific aspects of this new scope of work, to include:
• complete building renovation;
• elevator installation;
• locker replacement;
• roof replacement;
• exterior renovations; and,
33
• remodeling.
These items were not in the contract that A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. held
prior to PAT POPE's employment with the school system. As previously alleged, TONY
POPE was not eligible to bid or to be awarded this project in due to a conflict of interest
which could provide an unfair benefit. The "Addendum #1" added to TONY POPE'S
architectural fees and fraudulently benefited TONY POPE by an additional Six Hundred
Twenty-Five Thousand dollars ($625,000.00). eRAWFORD LEWIS, circumventing

necessary Board approval via Board Policies DJE and FGD-R, approved the "Addendum #1"
listing A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. as the recipient, thereby authorizing each check
issued to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. (Exhibit P).
The "Cost Breakdown" section of Addendum #1 to TONY POPE'S contract
indicates that 5% of his Six Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand dollars ($625,000.00) contract
award amount, or Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Twenty-Five dollars ($30,625.00), was for
his services related to "General Contractor Bidding and Negotiation." As previously
discussed, PAT POPE did not advertise the new construction contract required for the
Deferred SPLOST II work in violation of the law. Since no advertising, bidding, or
negotiations took place, A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. could not have performed
these bidding and negotiation services because no bids were received and no negotiations
ever took place. PAT POPE made no effort to recover the Thirty Thousand Six Hundred
Twenty-Five dollars ($30,625.00) DCSS paid to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. for
work which she knew it did not perform and would never perfoffi1.
34
7. Fraud via "Addendum #2" signed by CRAWFORD
LEWIS and PAT POPE
On December 13,2007, PAT POPE issued "Addendum #2" to TONY POPE's
contract for architectural services in the amount of Fifty-Two Thousand dollars ($52,000)
(See Exhibit Q). "Addendum #2" expanded TONY POPE's original scope of work to
provide drawing layouts and coordination for furniture, fixtures, and equipment (hereinafter
FF&E) for the Deferred SPLOST II work. As previously noted, Board Policy requires
purchases over Fifty Thousand dollars ($50,000) to get Board approval. PAT POPE and
CRAWFORD LEWIS did not submit Addendum #2 to the Board as required by Board
Policy DJE and subsequently approved Addendum #2 (which listed A. VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC. as the recipient) themselves, thereby authorizing each check issued to A.
VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
8. Fraud via Errors and Omissions
Architectural documents set out in detail the requiren1ents for a construction project
and an architect can be held financially responsible for any design mistakes made. The
architect must exercise ordinary skill, reasonable care, and due diligence to prevent design
mistakes. Finally, if an architect has made a mistake or been negligent in the accuracy of his
or her designs, the architect is liable to the owner for additional construction costs caused by
the architect's errors or omissions.
35
MERIT submitted numerous Change Order Requests to PAT POPE seeking
additional payments that became necessary due to the defective or incomplete architectural
design work done by TONY POPE. For example, in the Additions Contract, several Change
Orders were made and approved by PAT POPE and CRAWFORD LEWIS, and several
more Change Orders were approved by them on the HVAC and replacements contract. Some
of those Change Orders approved issuing more money to MERIT to cover the cost of extra
work that resulted from "Errors and Omissions" in the work submitted by TONY POPE and
his company. Although DCSS, as the Owner, was entitled to recover these costs from the
architectural company that was at fault (i.e. A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.),
CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE did not hold A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
financially responsible for its Errors and Omissions. CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE
failed to collect reimbursement in the amount of One Hundred Eighty-Two Thousand Eight
Hundred and Fifty ($185,850.00) for the Errors and Omissions in this project, from A.
VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. to which DCSS was entitled.
Encompassing the all Change Orders and Errors and Omissions, in the Columbia
Project alone, TONY POPE received One Million Four Hundred Sixty-Four Thousand
Three Hundred Thirty-Three dollars and Fifty-Four cents ($1,464,333.54) for "design" work.
Three Hundred Forty-One Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy-Seven dollars ($341,877.00) of
this amount stemmed from his original contract and the valid Change Order #1. PAT POPE
and CRAWFORD LEWIS approved the remaining One Million One Hundred Twenty-Two
Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-Six dollars and Fifty-Four cents ($1,122,456.54) in fraudulent
fees.
36
b. McNair Cluster Elementary Project
1. Background and Overview
Charles David Moody (hereinafter C.D. Moody), at times pertinent to this indictment,
was a close family friend of TONY POPE and PAT POPE. Mr. Moody owns C.D. MOODY
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (hereinafter CDM) and actively bids on various DCSS projects.
TONY POPE, as part of the CDM Design-Build team, did the majority of the design work
on the CDM response for the McNair Project.
DCSS, prior to PAT POPE's employment, initially decided to use the Design-Bid
Build 13 construction delivery approach for the McNair Project. DCSS contracted with an
architectural firm, Brown Design Group (hereinafter BDG) to design the new McNair
Elementary School. Within two months of her employment by DCSS, PAT POPE initiated
the termination ofBDG's contract and altered the delivery method from Design-Bid-Build to
Design-Build. 14
Once PAT POPE changed the project's delivery method, she advertised a "Request
For Proposal" 15 (hereinafter RFP) to potential offerors. Normally, when responses to RFPs
are returned, evaluators judge the responses using established criteria which have been
13 As previously noted, Design-Bid-Build is a construction delivery method where the Owner COCSS) first
contracts with an architect and only after drawings/plans have reached a certain point of completion does the
Owner then enter into a separate contract with a construction contractor to build the structure/perform the
construction work. Although these are two separate contracts, both the architect employed by the Owner and
the construction contractor employed by the Owner are required to work together during the construction phase
of the project to ensure proper construction and timely completion of the project.
14 As previously noted, Design/Build is a construction delivery method where the Owner has one contract with a
designer/architect and a construction contractor who have teamed up to design and build the project
simultaneously as a single entity. This construction delivery method is considered a fast-tracking method for
designing and building a structure.
15 Request For Proposal is a process in which construction companies or architectural firms would submit
information in order to obtain the job.
37
assigned different levels of importance and which are set forth in the RFP issued by the
Owner (DCSS). During the RFP phase for the McNair Project, but prior to the due date for
responses to the RFP, PAT POPE changed the established criteria, giving greater weight to
the "Approach" criterion of the project, which is essentially the architect's concept of the
project. 16
During this same time PAT POPE provided inside information to TONY POPE.
Specifically, PAT POPE informed TONY POPE that a DCSS Board member wanted a new
building, the location and need for bathrooms in certain areas of the building, and provided
early access to floor plans for the existing building on the project site. PAT POPE did not
share that information equally with the other offerors giving TONY POPE an inlproper
advantage. TONY POPE used this inside information to create two design options for
CDM's "Approach" for the project. CDM then won the bid.
PAT POPE took the multiple illegal steps enumerated below, to ensure that CDM ,
whom she knew was employing TONY POPE, won The McNair Project and was awarded
the Eleven Million Nine Hundred Thousand dollar ($11,900,000.00) contract. (See Exhibit
R). COINTA MOODY notarized TONY POPE's pay applications related to the McNair
Project which he submitted to DCSS.
2. Termination of the Architect
The McNair Project originally began as a Design-Bid-Build project. I? DCSS initially
contracted with BDG to perform the architectural and engineering services for the McNair
project. On December 14, 2005, DCSS issued a "stop work" to BDG. (See Exhibit S). One
16The "Approach" criterion is essentially the architect's concept of the project.
17As noted previously, Design-Bid-Build means an architect was hired separately by the DCSS, and the
construction part was bid out separately at a later date.
38
month later on January 17, 2006, CRAWFORD LEWIS wrote to Audra Brown-Cooper of
BDG and informed her that DCSS terminated the Architectural and Engineering Services
Contract with BDG (See Exhibit T). DCSS paid BDG One Hundred Five Thousand Five
Hundred and Thirty-Two dollars ($105,532.00) for the work they had already completed
which represented approximately 60% of the preliminary design. (See Exhibit U).
On February 3, 2006, PAT POPE then changed the McNair project to a Design
Build project and advertised a RFP (See Exhibit V) for the project as a Design-Build project.
This meant DCSS entered into a contract with only the construction company and the
construction company, in tum, contracted separately with an architect to design the project.
By making this change, PAT POPE was able to conceal the involvement of A. VINCENT
POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. as the architect teamed with CDM to provide architectural services
on the project.
3. PAT POPE changes the Criteria
PAT POPE changed evaluation criterion in order to benefit the company that would
hire A. VlNCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Specifically, offers made in response to an RFP
are evaluated by established criteria weighted by DCSS. The weight of each criterion is
disclosed to potential offerors in the RFP documents describing the project. This open
disclosure allows each offeror to compete fairly with one another since each one has the
same information.
There are differences between the Bidding process and the RFP process. In the
Bidding process, DCSS cannot negotiate for a lower price with bidders unless all bidders
submit bids exceeding the Owner's allocated budget for the project. On the other hand, in the
39
RFP process, when offers are submitted in response to a RFP, ness can interview or
negotiate with all offerors determined to be "reasonably susceptible of being selected for
award.,,18 A restriction on the ability to interview and negotiate is that if ness interviews or
has individual contact with any potential offeror then it must afford the same opportunity to
the other similarly situated offerors.
Offers made in response to the advertisement for the McNair project were initially
due March 23, 2006. The initial evaluation criteria included in the RFP were rated as follows:
firm overviews (200/0); approach (10%); experience (10%); past performance (20%);
financial information (10%); acceptance of owner's contract for fixed price design and
construction services (100/0); and fixed price for design and construction proposal (20%).
(Exhibit V, see page 8 section 10). On March 8, 2006 PAT POPE issued Addendum #3 to
the RFP, changing the weight given to each evaluation criteria. (See Exhibit W). The criteria
were then changed as follows: firm overviews (15%); approach (35%); experience (10%);
past performance (10%); financial information (5%); acceptance of owner's contract for
fixed price design and construction services (50/0); and fixed price design and construction
proposal (20%).
18 a.e.G.A. §36-91-21 (c)(2)
40
....
Criteria 0/0 Value Assigned 0/0 Value Assigned .

for 3/23 fot 3/29 ....
Firm overviews 20 15
Approach 10 35
Experience 10 10
Past Performance 20 10
Financial Information 10 5
Fixed Price Design 10 5

Services
Construction Proposal 20 20
Except for one criterion, all the weight values either stayed the same or changed,
either up or down, by five (5%) to ten percent (100/0). The Approach criterion, however, was
that increased twenty-five percent (250/0) points, so that it amounted to over one third of the
basis for the contract award. The Approach criterion is the architect's concept of the entire
project design.
4. PAT POPE holds Improper BAFO Meeting
After conducting interviews with all the offerors, the DCSS requested all offerors to
submit their Best and Final Offers (hereinafter BAFO) on the McNair Project via fax to the
DCSS office (See Exhibit Xt-Xs). The BAFO request was sent to:
• NIX FOWLER CONSTRUCTION;
• WINTER CONSTRUCTION;
• TURNER CONSTRUCTION;
• BARTON MALOW CONSTRUCTION; and,
41
• C.D. MOODY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
O.C.G.A. § 36-91-21(b) provides, in pertinent part:
Any competitive sealed bidding process shall comply with the following
requirements:
(1) The governmental entity shall publicly advertise an invitation for bids;
(2) Bidders shall submit sealed bids based on the criteria set forth in such
invitation;
(3) The governmental entity shall open the bids publicly and evaluate such
bids without discussions with the bidders; and
(emphasis added)
The only construction company PAT POPE met with during the five day period
between the issuance of the BAFO request and the BAFO due date was CDM. In this one-on
one meeting, PAT POPE discussed specific items to be cut from CDM's offer and intimated
to Mr. Fragala, an estimator with CDM, the price he should submit in his BAFO in order for
CDM to win the project.
CDM's initial offer was for Twelve Million Four Hundred Eighty-Four Thousand
dollars ($12,484,000). (See Exhibit V). This was Four Hundred Eighty-Six Thousand dollars
($486,000) more than the next lowest price offered by NIX FOWLER. As a result of the
meeting, CDM submitted a BAFO that was Five Hundred Eighty-Four Thousand dollars
($584,000.00) less than its initial offer, thereby totaling Eleven Million Nine Hundred
Thousand dollars ($11,900,000.00). (See Exhibit Z).
42
:
Comp~ny Final Offer' . ' :Dirt~~~fic~, "
....
Initial Offer
..
NIX FOWLER $11,998,000 $11,948,000 $50,000
WINTER $13,382,000 $13,157,000 $225,000
TURNER $15,460,000 $15,400,000 $60,000
BARTON MALOW $15,899,916 $15,599,324 $300,592
CDM $12,484,000 $11,900,000 $584,000
NIX FOWLER CONSTRUCTION dropped $50,000 from its initial response and submitted
a BAFO offer for the project in the amount of $11,948,000.00. Without PAT POPE's
provision of inside information to CDM, NIX FOWLER CONSTRUCTION would have been the
lowest offeror and, thereby, been awarded the McNair Project. (See Exhibit AA).
5. PAT POPE Manipulates Scoring of Offerors
PAT POPE manipulated the scoring process for the McNair Project in order to give
the award to CDM. Specifically, she instructed Paulette Strain, an evaluator and scorer for
the McNair Project, to significantly change her score to ensure that CDM won the contract
award. CDM did in fact win the contract and, in tum, continued to pay A. VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC. for work performed on the McNair Project.
43
6. Money to TONY POPE
The McNair project was awarded to CDM on April 20, 2006. (See Exhibit R). CDM
contracted with TONY POPE to provide Architectural services and drawings, and over the
course of the project paid TONY POPE One Hundred Sixty-Six Thousand Two Hundred
Sixty-Two dollars ($166,242.00) from the funds it received from DCSS. COINTA MOODY
notarized TONY POPE's pay applications which he submitted to DCSS for these funds.
7. Concealment of TONY POPE's participation in the

McNair Project
CDM listed Vernell Barnes as the Architect of Record and paid him One Hundred
Seventy-Five Thousand Four Hundred Two dollars ($175,402.00) for Architectural services
on the project. Of this money, Vernell Barnes paid over Twenty Thousand dollars to TONY
POPE. PAT POPE never disclosed to DCSS that A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. was
part of the Design-Build team on CDM's RFP
Although Vernell Barnes was listed as the Architect, TONY POPE, not Mr. Barnes,
prepared the design portion of C.D. MOODY'S RFP response and utilizing the inside-
information not made available to the other Design-Build firms. In that regard, TONY
POPE utilized electronic communications in interstate commerce in furtherance of the
scheme to defraud and to conceal his participation in it. He sent the following emails to
Barnes, C.D. Moody, PAT POPE, and ot~er CDM employees involved in the McNair
Project during the restricted pre-offer period of the project. (See Exhibits BB.-BB ll ):
44
Email # Date Sent to: Substance
1 2/17/06 Vernell Barnes "We are pursuing the McNair Cluster, not
Arabia Mountain. Darlene accidentally copied
both packages." (emphasis added)
2 2/22/06 Vernell Barnes, "David, I am pressed to wrap up Columbia and

C.D. Moody, Fairfield today and tomorrow. Can we meet
Dave Fragala Friday afternoon to discuss approach [sic] to
this project at your office. If this is a good day,
let me know what time and I will coordinate
with Vernel!. Thanks." (emphasis added)
3 2/27/06 Vernell Barnes, "I am attaching a copy of the floor plan

C.D. Moody, diagram for the existing building for your
Dave Fragala records. There are 28 classrooms We would
have to bring this one up 27 rooms. Almost
double size. We need to check on this. Not
sure if there is adequate land to support a
building of such size." (emphasis added)
4 3/4/06 Ron Nancel':J "In developing a new school, are there any
state guidelines or criteria to determining the
size of the athletic and play fields for schools?
Weare doing a proposal for an
addition/possible new school on existing site
and the classroom requirements have doubled
what was on the original site." (emphasis
added)
5 3/4/06 PAT POPE Forward of email response from Ron Nance

6 3/6/06 Vernell Barnes, "Please send all request to Vernel!. I am
C.D. Moody, assisting on this project but cannot be
Dave Fragala disclosed. From now on, all correspondence
goes to him. You can [carbon copy] me. I will
track down those figures." (emphasis added)
7 3/10/06 James "James: Please give Diane Maddox a ring at

Camach0 20 C.D. Moody Construction. We are pursuing a
design/build package for DeKalb County
Schools and there is a kitchen and cafeteria
con1ponent." (emphasis added)
8 3/20/06 Vernell Barnes "Vernell: Pat indicated that the existing gym
does not have toilets with the building. Have
19 State of Georgia Department of Education.

20 A kitchen consu Itant
45
you seen the inside of the complex? If it does
not have toilets, then there is not much worth
keeping with the building."
9 3/20/06 Vemell Barnes, "David, proposed new building wall section to

C.D. Moody, be 6" 16 gage metal studs, 6"rock mineral
Dave Fragala wool insulation, ~" sheathing, building wrap
and 7.5 mm eterpan-MD board. Exposed
stainless steel fasteners. You should have the
contract from the Gammon Project where we
considered the use of the product. I spoke with
Pat about it and she was fine. Asked us to
use on existing building also to tie thee [sic]
two together." (emphasis added)
10 3/20/06 Vemell Barnes, "Spoke with DeKalb today concerning the
C.D. Moody, project off line. One major issue is to make
Dave Fragala sure that the existing utilities can support the
proposed building and additions. We need to
make sure we all know where the utilities
enter the site, etc. Was also told that the
existing multi-purpose building might have
toilets. Need to verify. If it does not, then it
is more than likely that we should loose the
building and building new. I am working on
an updated site plan to send to all later today.
In our cost proposal, we need to provide a
cost to tear down the existing components we
are salvaging and build new in same design
pattern. Pat expressed that the Board
Member is really interested in a new
building." (emphasis added)
11 3/22/06 From Fragala "Tony, we are out at the site today. We need to
to: get a scaled site plan with the new pods on it. I
TONY POPE am not sure that they are going to fit like your
Vernell Barnes sketches." (emphasis added)
12 4/13/06 LJ C.D. Moody "We will be in your office tomorrow at 1 p.m.
to review the [architectural and engineering]
contracts and proposed [architectural]
arrangement for this proj ect." (emphasis
added)
21 This is one week prior to the Notice of Award being sent out.
46
8. TONY POPE's Post-Award Efforts to Conceal His
Participation
After CDM was awarded the project, TONY POPE utilized electronic
communications in interstate in order to conceal and hide his involvement in the McNair
project. (See Exhibit CC).

., ..
Email # Date Sent to: Substance ,... .
.,
1 7/5/2006 Vernell Barnes, "The documents received from Barnes where

C.D. Moody, [sic] not stamped. Due to the timing of this, I
Dave Fragala have stamped the drawings and taking for
permit today. I will send a cover letter stating
that I was doing peer review and stamping
for the demolition to put in file. Since these
will have to remain on site, my name
might be seen." (emphasis added)
TONY POPE later removed these drawings from the DeKalb County Permit Office
and destroyed them. Additionally, TONY POPE failed to provide any pay applications for
this project and, in response to the District Attorney's criminal subpoena request, falsely
denied that any existed
47
c. Mountain Industrial Center (MIC) Project
1. Background
MIC is a large complex that was formally made up of several warehouse-type
shopping stores. DCSS acquired this structure previously and since that time, perforn1ed
limited renovations on a portion of the structure in order to house the school system's
driver's education program. DCSS utilized the majority of this large structure as a storage
facility until the time that the MIC project was cleared for renovations. DCSS authorized the
build-out of the entire MIC project with the area designated for the DeKalb Early College
Academy (hereinafter DECA) taking precedence in the building plan.
2. PAT POPE fires the Architect of Record
DCSS initially designated MIC a Design-Bid-Build Project, with CDH PARTNERS
(hereinafter CDH) to be its Architect of Record. 22 On July, 23, 2007, DCSS awarded an
architectural and engineering services contract to CDH. Although CDH, executed the
contracts on August 14,2007, and returned them to DCSS, PAT POPE never signed them.
(See Exhibit DD). In late August of 2007, PAT POPE informed CDH that the school system
was going in a "different direction" and would not execute the contract. No further
explanation was provided to CDH. The Board was not informed or consulted in this decision.
On August 30, 2007, DCSS emailed a request to THE CHAMPION NEWSPAPER to
place an advertisement 23 soliciting RFP's for this project using the Design-Build delivery
22 Consistent with other Design-Sid-Build delivery methods, DCSS entered into two separate contracts - first
with architect CDH and later with a contractor.
23 As noted, placement of such an advertisement is required under the Georgia competitive award statutes
requiring advertisements to be posted in the "legal organ" for the county.
48
24
method. (See Exhibit EE). The RFP advertisement announced a mandatory pre-proposal
conference for all potential offerors to be held on September 11, 2007. (See Exhibit FF).
Representatives from MERIT, A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC., NIX-FoWLER
CONSTRUCTION, and C.D. MOODY attended. (See Exhibit GG).
The Minutes of that meeting clearly document DCSS' intention to award a Design-
Build contract fOf the renovation or "build out" of the entire MIC structure with the DECA
portion to be completed first. (See Exhibit HH). In addition to the meeting minutes, the
advertisement and the Program Narrative (part of the RFP package) made clear that only one
Design-Build contract was to be awarded for all necessary renovations to the entire MIC
structure.
3. Advertising One Scope of Work
TONY POPE emailed Amy Sue Mann, PAT POPE, and Mark Schiling [MERIT
CONSTRUCTION] on September 19, 2007, asking for a "request for information" (pursuant to
the procedures set up for pre-proposal questions) related to the MIC project which was out
for RFP. (See Exhibit II). In that email, TONY POPE references "the Merit Design team"
indicating his intention to team with MERIT CONSTRUCTION to form a Design-Build team that
would make an offer on the MIC project. TONY POPE sent a second follow-up email the
next day requesting clarification concerning one of the requirements and once again doing so
on behalf the MERIT Design team." (See Exhibit JJ)
DCS S issued an Addendum # 1 to the RFP request on September 24, 2007 and
scheduled a second mandatory pre-proposal conference on October 4, 2007 (See Exhibit
24 Under the design-build method the contractor pays the architect, unlike the Design-Bid-Build method, where
the architect is under contract with and is paid by the Owner.
49
KK). TONY POPE as a representative of his company, A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES,
INC., attended, while PAT POPE conducted the meeting. The minutes from this meeting
reiterate the intention of DCSS to award one contract that would encompass all needed
design and construction services to renovate or "build out" the entire MIC structure so that it
could accommodate certain schools and departments. (See Exhibit LL).
Offers in response to the RFP were due on October 18, 2007. Only three offers were
submitted to DCSS. The Design-Build team of MERIT and A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES,
INC. did not submit a RFP response because MERIT had last minute concerns about their
bonding capability and their liability in having to employ and oversee an architect.
DCSS used a scoring system for prospective offerors similar to the one used in the
McNair Project in which each listed criteria is given a weighted percentage value. Based on
the Interview Evaluation scores and the Proposal Evaluations, Hogan received the highest
(best) score with three hundred and ninety -seven (397) points. (See Exhibit MM).
4. PAT POPE limits Scope of Work
On October 23,2007, PAT POPE faxed requests to all offerors for BAFO'S to
negotiate the best-offered price between the remaining companies for the MIC project. (See
Exhibit NN1-NN J ). Rather than request BAFOs for the entire project as discussed in
previous Meeting Minutes, this fax only requested the best lump sum price for the DECA
portion of the project and for providing a new roof for the entire structure. HOGAN provided
the lowest (best) BAFO figure and the overall most advantageous offer. (See Exhibit 00).
DCSS subsequently awarded HOGAN a contract solely for the build-out of the DECA portion
of the MIC structure. (See Exhibit PP). The awarded project was a much smaller project
50
than what was publicly advertised by DCSS originally. DCSS never issued a BAFO request
for the best-offered price for the entire MIC structure, thereby violating the Competitive
Award Statutes. 25
5. PAT POPE's misrepresentation to the Board of Education
On November 11,2007, PAT POPE presented the contract award of the DECA
portion of the MIC project as an Agenda Item to the Board. (See Exhibit QQ). She did not
mention to the Board or make clear that the entire MIC structure was the actual project that
was previously advertised by the DCSS. PAT POPE significantly changed the character and
extent of the project and then failed to advertise this smaller project as required by law. 26 She
also misrepresented her actions to the Board. Eventually, HOGAN acquiesced and signed the
Design-Build contract for "Mountain Industrial Center Tenant Build Out - DECA Program"
on December 12, 2007.
6. Fraudulent Creation of "MIC II"
2SO.C.G.A.§ 36-91-20 (b)(5), & (h)(6).

26Pursuant to O.C.G.A.§ 36-91-20 (b)(5), "contract opportunities that will be awarded by competitive sealed
proposals shall be publicly advertised with a request for proposal which request shall included conceptual
program information in the request for proposals describing the requested services in a level of detail
appropriate to the project delivery method selected for the project."
Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 36-91-20 (h)(6), "the advertisement shall include such details and specifications as will
enable the public to know the extent and character of the work to be done."
51
In regards to the MIC Project, PAT POPE consistently manipulated the process in
order to ensure that A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. received revenue. In early
February, 2008, DCSS placed its advertisement for a Design-Build project for the remainder
of the MIC structure. (See Exhibit RR). According to the advertisement, responses to the
RFP were due on March 18, 2008, and a mandatory pre-proposal conference was scheduled
to take place on March 4, 2008. The attendees at this pre-proposal conference included
representatives from NIX-FOWLER CONSTRUCTION, HOGAN, and A. VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC. (See Exhibit SS). Only NIX-FOWLER (who teamed with TONY POPE),
and HOGAN submitted RFP responses on March 18, 2008. DCSS awarded the NIX-FOWLER
and A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. team the MIC project in April of 2008, n1inus the
construction related to DECA for Seventeen Million Six Hundred Forty-Six Thousand
dollars ($17,646,000.00). (See Exhibit TT).
7. Misrepresentation to ncss Counsel

Prior to the contract award, it became apparent that TONY POPE'S involvement on
the MIC project was being questioned due to the inherent conflict of interest. On March 26,
2008, PAT POPE issued a memo to Amy Sue Mann (DCSS) indicating that legal counsel
had reviewed the issue and there was no conflict. (See Exhibit UU). In actuality, PAT POPE
consulted DCSS General Counsel, Stan Hawkins on the matter generally, but did not give
him the full set of facts surrounding TONY POPE'S involvement in the MIC project. PAT
POPE never told Mr. Hawkins that TONY was going to be part of a team submitting an RFP
response on a project such as MIC.
52
8. Misrepresentation to DCSS Board
During the presentation of the MIC project to the Board, PAT POPE never disclosed
the involvement of TONY POPE or the role of his company in the MIC project. (See
Exhibit VV). The Board, with the recommendation of PAT POPE, approved the contract
award to NIX-FoWLER for Seventeen Million Six Hundred Forty-Six Thousand dollars
($17,646,000.00). That contract contained a design fee 2? of 4.85%, totaling Eight Hundred
Fifty-Five Thousand Thirty-One dollars ($855,831.00), which was paid to A. VINCENT POPE
& ASSOCIATES, INC. (See page 22 of Exhibit WW). On May 11, 2008, CRAWFORD
LEWIS signed the contract with NIX-FoWLER. The contract specifically mentioned A.
VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. as being involved in this project (Exhibit WW, page 37).
9. Additional Money to TONY POPE
Less than a month after the MIC contract award, DCSS instructed NiX-FoWLER to
conduct a study to see if all DCSS administrative offices could be moved to MIC; however,
the study called for the expertise of an architect. In February, 2009, PAT POPE and
CRAWFORD LEWIS executed a Two Million Four Hundred Forty-Three Thousand Eight
Hundred Thirty-Nine dollars ($2,443,839.00) Change Order to cover the cost associated with
the approved plan to move all DCSS administration into MIC. TONY POEP benefitted from
this award.
d. Arabia Mountain High School Project
1. Background
27 The amount paid to the architectural company.
53
Prior to her employment with A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. or DCSS, PAT
POPE worked for a subsidiary corporation of TURNER CONSTRUCTION. In 2006, DCSS, with
the recommendation of PAT POPE, awarded the Arabia Mountain High School Project to
TURNER CONSTRUCTION, even though both their original offer and BAFO were higher than
that of their competitor, WINTER CONSTRUCTION. 28 Shortly thereafter, PAT POPE began
soliciting and receiving expensive tickets to various sporting events on behalf of herself and
eRAWFORD LEWIS from TURNER CONSTRUCTION.
2. Forged tally sheets
PAT POPE was one of seven panelists who formed the selection committee
awarding the construction contract for the Arabia Mountain High School Project. The
panelists interviewed the companies and scored the offers submitted. The original score tally
29
and ranking forms support DCSS giving the Arabia Project to WINTER.
Four panelists did not sign or view the final "Score Tally and Ranking Sheet," which
is the totality of all the evaluations scores and is used as a basis for awarding construction
contracts on the Score Tally and Ranking Sheet. PAT POPE forged the signatures of
Roberta Unger, Joseph Brew, and Wayne Tyler. Contrary to what Roberta Unger actually
scored, the forged document inaccurately 'scored TURNER higher in the category of Approach,
during the selection time. (See Exhibit XX). In particular, the "original" documents
containing the panelists' signatures are actually scanned computer generated colored copies.
of their original signatures, which they did not authorize. PAT POPE was the only panelist
out of the seven to score for TURNER on an original, unforged tally sheet and she was the
28TURNER'S BAFO only becomes lower after the "Add Alternates," a weighted criterion, are stricken.
29The score tally and ranking form are documents indicating the overall rankings of contractors that submitted
offers on the project
54
only one to control the documents after they were collected from the other committee
members.
3. Bribery of PAT POPE and CRAWFORD LEWIS
Shortly after winning the Arabia Mountain Project, TURNER sought to win the
contract with DCSS for the Tucker High School Project. TURNER recognized that PAT
POPE and CRAWFORD LEWIS controlled information given to the Board in connection
with its decisions concerning contracts to construction companies in excess of Fifty
Thousand dollars ($50,000.00). Shortly after the Arabia Mountian Project was awarded to
TURNER, PAT POPE repeatedly solicited gifts from TURNER on behalf of herself and
CRAWFORD LEWIS.
For example, in 2008, TURNER bought Thirty-Five Thousand Four Hundred dollars
($35,400.00) worth of Master's Golf Tournament tickets at the request of PAT POPE.
Approximately ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) worth of those tickets were utilized by
DCSS employees. PAT POPE received six tickets for four days to the Masters - four of
which CRAWFORD LEWIS used. Additionally, PAT POPE also received tickets to the
Masters in February 2009 worth Three Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety-Nine dollars
($3,399.00). In 2009, TURNER gave approxinlately 24 premium tickets, to approximately 6
Atlanta Hawks' games to PAT POPE, TONY POPE and CRAWFORD LEWIS. PAT
POPE and CRAWFORD LEWIS concealed the receipt of these gifts from the Board
contrary to Board Policy GAl.
55
3. Other Acts
a. Benefit to PAT POPE
TONY POPE transferred $100,000.00 paid by DCSS to ANTHONY VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC. into an account for P2 HOLDINGS,30 which he jointly owned with PAT
POPE, through a series of ten checks, as follows:
From ,,' :E3.c:3~k ofAmeriqaGheck # To Arnouht 'Da.!e

AVP&A 2993 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 8/17/2006
AVP&A 2994 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 8/18/2006
AVP&A 2995 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 8/18/2006
AVP&A 2996 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 8/18/2006
AVP&A 2997 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 8/18/2006
AVP&A 2998 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 8/18/2006
AVP&A 2999 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 8/18/2006
AVP&A 3000 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 8/18/2006
AVP&A 3001 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 8/18/2006
AVP&A 3002 P2 HOLDINGS $ 10,000.00 8/18/2006
b. Bribery of PAT POPE and CRAWFORD LEWIS
HEERY-MITCHELL oversaw construction contracts prior to PAT POPE's employment
by DCSS. Shortly after being employed by DCSS, she fired this company and replaced them
with GUDE MANAGEMENT GROUP (hereinafter GUDE). PAT POPE knew the owner, Samuel
Gude from their days working at another construction company. Immediately after hiring
GUDE and during her tenure as COO, PAT POPE or COINTA MOODY repeatedly
solicited GUDE to provide tickets to various social functions including:
• Multiple tickets to the Atlanta Falcons totaling Three Thousand Three Hundred
Ninety-One dollars and Twenty-Five cents ($3,391.25) for her and TONY POPE
• Four (4) Tickets to the 2007 Final Four Tournan1ent totaling Eighteen Thousand
Six Hundred Twenty-Two dollars ($18,622.00) for her and TONY POPE
30 A company account he owned with PAT POPE.
56
• Numerous Tickets to the Fox Theater totaling Nine Hundred Twenty dollars
($920.00) for her and TONY POPE
• Multiple Tickets to the 2008 Atlanta Mayor's Ball for her, TONY POPE, and
CRAWFORD LEWIS
If GUDE did not provide the tickets solicited, PAT POPE would berate Samuel Gude
over some aspect of his job, implying that he would lose his contract. The hostility would
continue until he acquiesced to her request or referred her to another source to fulfill the
request. For example, PAT POPE solicited Samuel Gude to pay for CRAWFORD LEWIS'
vacation to New York City. Mr. Gude declined and referred her to another source.
c. Illegal Car Purchases
1. CRAWFORD LEWIS
During his tenure of CRAWFORD LEWIS as Superintendent, he and PAT POPE
were the only DCSS employees to purchase their DCSS assigned vehicles at a substantial
price reduction.
Contrary to law, CRAWFORD LEWIS purchased a 2006 Ford 500 from the DCSS
on July 5, 2007 for Five Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Six dollars and Twenty-Five cents
($5,766.25). (See Exhibit YY). This figure represents approximately thirty-five percent
(35%) of the Kelly Blue Book value of the vehicle at the time of the purchase. DCSS
originally purchased the car for the amount of Twenty-Three Thousand Fifty-Five dollars
($23,055.00) on October 26, 2005 and it had 24,345 miles at the time of the purchase by
CRAWFORD LEWIS.
57
PAT POPE oversaw the DCSS vehicle fleet. In April 2007, CRAWFORD LEWIS
began discussions with her concerning the purchase of the 2006 Ford 500. While DCSS
researched the potential purchase, CRAWFORD LEWIS was involved in a car accident in
this same car during a trip to Savannah, Georgia. 31 Contrary to the provisions that cars are to
be purchased by governments (not individuals) in "as-is" condition, on June 29, 2007, after
the accident and immediately prior the purchase, CRAWFORD LEWIS turned the car in for
new tires and other repairs. The cost of the tires was Four Hundred Twenty dollars $420.00,
excluding labor. (See Exhibit ZZ). The cost of the repairs was Five Hundred Seventy-Three
dollars and Forty-Seven cents ($573.47), excluding labor. (See Exhibit AAA). During the
investigation into this improper purchase, CRAWFORD LEWIS lied to Investigator W.C.
Nix of the DeKalb District Attorney's Office falsely stating that the efforts to purchase the
car were made only after the accident - indicating that the accident occurred, the car was
fixed, and then he purchased it. In fact, the discussions to purchase the car began two months
prior to the accident.
2. PAT POPE
On April 3, 2008, PAT POPE purchased a 2005 Ford Explorer from DCSS for Five
Thousand Four Hundred Forty-Two dollars and Fifty cents ($5,442.50) (See Exhibit BBB).
This figure represents thirty-five percent (35%) of the appraised value. The original purchase
price of the vehicle was Twenty-Six Thousand dollars ($26,000.00) and it had 22,300 miles
31 The State of Georgia Department of Administrative Services (DOAS) policy permits the sale of government
vehicles at a specified percentage to local governments and non-profit organizations, but not to individuals.
DOAS policies and procedures with regards to the sale of surplus property indicates all property can only be
transferred by the State of Georgia in "As-Is, Where-Is" condition.
58
at the time of the purchase. Prior to purchasing it, PAT POPE also submitted a "punch list"
of things she wanted repaired on the vehicle prior to purchasing it. The cost of these repairs,
excluding labor, were One Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Two dollars and Forty-Nine cents
($1,342.49) which DCSS paid (See Exhibit CCC). The title to the car was then put in PAT
POPE's name contrary to the above mentioned State of Georgia Department of
Administrative Services (DOAS) policy.
d. Improper Use of DCSS Purchasing Card
DCSS issued CRAWFORD LEWIS a county-issued purchasing card, (hereinafter
P-Card). He was authorized to use that card to purchase gasoline and various incidentals
related to his job. He fraudulently used his P-card in various methods.
1. Theft: CRAWFORD LEWIS pays for

personal vacation
For example, on June 17, 2008, CRAWFORD LEWIS called Marcus Turk, CFO of
DCSS and stated to Turk that he was going on vacation and was short on funds. He asked if
he could use the P-Card to pay for his hotel. Turk advised CRAWFORD LEWIS that such
actions were illegal. The next day, Lewis repeated the same request and received the same
response. Despite these warnings, CRAWFORD LEWIS used his DCSS P-Card to pay for a
hotel room at The Lucayan in Freeport, Bahamas for Two Hundred Ninety-Five and Twenty
cents ($295.20). (See Exhibit DDD). No official business was conducted during this stay.
2. Theft: CRAWFORD LEWIS pays for

unauthorized personal activities
59
CRAWFORD LEWIS used his position at DCSS to initiate and facilitate personal
relationships with female employees. Specifically, he paid for a room at The Ritz Carlton in
Greensboro, Georgia, on March 12, 2008, which he used exclusively for personal use with a
female su1Jordinate accompanying him. (See Exhibit EEE). No official county business was
conducted despite the county P-Card being used for payment. CRAWFORD LEWIS also
used county-purchased gasoline to travel to these locations.
e. Theft: PAT POPE pays COINTA MOODY Overtime Pay

for Personal Business
COINTA MOODY was PAT POPE's Administrative Assistant at DCSS. She went
from a salary of $37,000 per year to $60,000 per year. She began receiving overtime in fiscal
year 2007-2008. From July 2007 through June 2008, COINTA MOODY received over
$10,000 in overtime. From July 2008-June 2009, COINTA MOODY received Forty-Two
Thousand Three Hundred Twelve dollars and Eighty-One cents ($42,312.81) from DCSS by
filing fraudulent overtime applications. (See Exhibit FFF).
PAT POPE approved MOODY's overtime claims even though she knew at the time
MOODY claimed to be working overtime on school related matters that she was actually
running personal errands for PAT POPE. For example, MOODY would make personal bank
deposits for PAT POPE during the time she claimed to be working on school related
matters. (See Exhibit GGG).
CRAWFORD LEWIS previously issued a memorandum that all overtime claims
must be approved by him, prior to the hours being worked. Neither MOODY nor PAT
POPE followed that mandate with regard to MOODY. After finding out about MOODY's
60
excessive overtime claim, CRAWFORD LEWIS settled the claim and took no action
against PAT POPE for failure to submit the requested overtime for payment through him.
C. Acts Hindering the Criminal Investigation
CRAWFORD LEWIS, and PAT POPE, engaged in acts which obstructed and
hindered the investigation into the illegal activities previously enumerated. Specifically, the
parties engaged in acts such as: appointing the target of the investigation as the person that
responded to criminal subpoenas; failure to respond to subpoenas; tampering with evidence;
and, false statements. Additionally, TONY POPE obstructed and hindered the investigation
by failing to produce documents in his possession in respond to subpoenas regarding MIC
and McNair Project.
1. CRAWFORD LEWIS appoints the target of the investigation, PAT

POPE, to respond to District Attorney's subpoenas
During the investigation, the District Attorney's Office subpoenaed documents
necessary to exanline the allegations of fraud perpetrated by PAT POPE. The subpoenas
were directed to the Director of Internal Affairs for DCSS. CRAWFORD LEWIS ordered
the Director to forward the subpoenas to PAT POPE as the person to respond to these
requests. PAT POPE, in turn, only produced a miniscule nurnber of documents in response
to the subpoenas, knowingly withholding documents responsive to the subpoenas. Due to this
lack of compliance, the District Attorney's Office executed a search warrant at the Sam Moss
Center on October, 13, 2009. The search resulted in approximately fifty (50) banker's boxes
61
of documents compared to the approximately three (3) inches thick worth of documents that
PAT POPE provided.
The responsive documents that P AT POPE did not turn over to the District
Attorney's office include:
~"',~'~ w, , ' , .. ;';;'"V
....
,
':"""Ite'm , "
. , Received'''''' 'I., .,. . "';Recei'v:ed"""¥ii
,',
- "
~., , . ,~ , ... ...
.,
,
,-.,,,'t -:'.", ",
I~ -,
pi.S,~.QllR~n:~L".,..'...,.....Q!.S.~3.r;£'l.~lH::[!;lllU
, "
Columbia High School
• All bid submissions for Additions and Incomplete ./

HVAC projects.
• Original bid tabs for Additions and ./
HVAC projects.
• All executed Change Orders with Incomplete ./
backup documentation,
• All Department of Education Incomplete ./
correspondence.
• Change Orders and Change Order Incomplete ./
requests for Deferred SPLOST II
work.
• All pre-bid documents in reference to ./
the AlE scope of work and
construction scope of work.
• .Original contract with A. Vincent ./
Pope and Associates.
• All meeting minutes. Incomplete ./
• Non-collusion affidavits.
..
./
. :. :".: .....
.
McNair Cluster Element ary

. .<
....
'.
'", .
• Complete RFP responses by C.D. ./

Moody and Nix-Fowler.
• BAFO responses by C.D. Moody and ./
Nix-Fowler.
• Original evaluations of RFP ./
interviews.
62
• Contract and correspondence with ./
Brown Design Group.
• All meeting minutes of the Board ./
regarding McNair.
• Non-collusion affidavits ./
Mountain Industrial Center
• All evaluation/tally sheets for MIC ./

#l.
• All handwritten evaluation sheets for ./
MIC #2.
• All meeting minutes. ./
• Offeror form for Hogan Construction ./
for MIC #2.
• BAFO form for Hogan Construction ./
for MIC #2.
• All sealed fee proposals. ./
Arabia Mountain
• All contracts. Incomplete ./

• All correspondences. Incomplete ./
• All Change Orders with backup Incomplete ./
documentation.
• All payment applications and Incomplete ./
payment records.
• All original pre-proposal documents, Incon1plete ./
RFP responses, and evaluation/tally
sheets
All the evidence referenced above was received by way of search warrant although it
existed and was on site as of the dates of the subpoena.
2. CRAWFORD LEWIS gives False Statements
At times pertinent to the investigation, CRAWFORD LEWIS gave false statements
to the District Attorney's Office during the investigation into construction contracts.
63
Specifically, CRAWFORD LEWIS denied that PAT POPE was blackmailing or had
blackmailed him. In fact, PAT POPE called CRAWFORD LEWIS at the beginning of the
District Attorney's investigation and told him that she knew things about him which would
damage him and she would tell everyone if the investigation did not stop.
CRAWFORD LEWIS also concealed the fact from Investigator W.C. Nix TONY
POPE approached DRS, a project management company, and represented that URS would
win a contract with DCSS if they partnered with him in a joint venture
3. CRAWFORD LEWIS attempts to stop the District Attorney's

Office criminal investigation
In April, 2006, PAT POPE fired HEERy-MITCHELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
(hereinafter HEERY-MITCHELL) as the Construction Program Manager for DCSS. As
Construction Program Manager, HEERY-MITCHELL oversaw all construction projects on
behalf ofDCSS. HEERY-MITCHELL filed suit against DCSS for payments due to them.
Instead of paying, DCSS counter-sued HEERY-MITCHELL. As of the date of this indictment;
that civil lawsuit is still pending.
During the Summer and early Fall of 2009, the District Attorney's investigation
accelerated. On October 2, 2009, the DA's Office interviewed DCSS construction attorney
Greg Morgan. Morgan subsequently reported to DCSS about the progress of the
investigation. Shortly thereafter, on October 8, 2009, CRAWFORD LEWIS unsuccessfully
attempted to contact Gwen Keyes-Fleming, District Attorney. He then spoke with Chief
Assistant District Attorney Don Geary of the District Attorney's Office via telephone. During
64
this conversation, eRAWFORD LEWIS requested Chief Geary to "table" the District
Attorney's Office investigation. He characterized PAT POPE as the star witness in the civil
lawsuit and the need to keep her clean to prevent jeopardizing the civil lawsuit. Chief
Assistant Geary refused to table the investigation.
65
PART VI - Acts of Racketeering Activity
The acts below constitute a pattern of racketeering activity in that they were
committed in furtherance of one or more incidents, schemes or transactions that had the same
or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission or otherwise were
interrelated by distinguishing characteristics.
A. Columbia High School
1. PAT POPE
a. Theft by Taking, O.C.G.A. § 16-8-2
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb, did
unlawfully take United States currency, an amount greater than Five Hundred dollars
($500.00), the property of the DeKalb County School System, with the intent to deprive said
owner of said property, as detailed below which constitutes racketeering activity pursuant to
O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3 (9)(A)(ix).
Act Scope Date Issued To . ·AIn()~nt

... "
1 Authorizing Change Order #2 3/10/2006 TONY POPE $ 179,690.00

2 Authorizing Change Order #3 7/25/2006 TONY POPE $ 268,766.54
3 Authorizing Addendum # 1 5/1/2007 TONY POPE $ 625,000.00
4 Authorizing Addendum #2 12/13/2007 TONY POPE $ 52,000.00
66
b. Acts Involving Theft
engage in the below listed acts involving theft which are punishable by imprisonment of
more than one year, and which constitute racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-14
3 (9)(B).
Act, Act Involving Theft
5 Approval of Change Order #2 3/10/06 $176,690.00

'.,....... > .:,,:.'::;" ..
6 Approval of Pay Application

for Change Order #2 ,:'.
7 Misrepresentation to the Board to Approve Change
Order #2
8
Approval of Change Order #3 7/25/06 $268,766.54 I
9 Approval of Pay Application .... .· ..:,i< i ..

for Change Order #3 I ..· ...
10 Misrepresentation to the Board to Approve Change

Order #3 , .'
11 Approval of Contract Extension 6/12/07 $1,635,976.00
$ 1,635,976.00 Contract Extension
(Change Order #7 to HVAC)
... :. .:',: .• ':'J:::
12 Approval of Pay Application for
". ,:,' ..
$ 1,635,976.00 Contract Extension
,'
(Change Order #7 to HVAC) " ....
13 Misrepresentation to the Board to Approve Contract 8/13/07 $8,179,867.00
Extension
14
Approval of Addendum # 1 5/9/07 $625,000.00
15 Approval of Pay Application for Addendum #1
16
Approval of Addendum #2 12/13/07 $52,000.00
.'
','
Refusal to seek reimbursement for Errors &
,
Oll1i~sions involving CHSAddition caused byA.
VINCENT POPE& ASSOCIATES, INC. :.
18 for Errors & Omissions contained in 815/06 $20,291.00
Change Order #2
19
for Errors & Omissions contained in 9/22/06 $24,117.00
Change Order #4
67
20 for Errors & Omissions contained in 10/16/06 $16,250.00
Change Order #5
21 for Errors & Omissions contained in 10/16/06 $15437.00
Change Order #6
Change Order #7
Change Order #8
Change Order #9
Change Order # 10
:' ',': "-,,,
Refu~al to seek r~iInbursementforErrQrs& ,
'; Oll1.issionsinvolvingthe CHS HVAC callsed byA. .':'

26 for Errors & Omissions contained in 815/06 $9,608.00
Change Order # 1
Change Order #2
Change Order #3
Change Order #4
Change Order #5
31 for Errors & Omissions contained in 5/11//07 $15,569.00
Change Order #6
Change Order #9
68
c. False Statements, O.C.G.A. § 16-1 0-20
knowingly and willfully conceal a material fact, to wit: that Anthony Pope was performing
work which he was not authorized to perform and that he was receiving payment thereon
involving DeKalb County School System construction projects outside of his original
contract involving acts below, a matter within the jurisdiction of the DeKalb County School
System, a political subdivision of this state, as detailed below and which constitute
racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3 (9)(A)(xv).
Act Scope
33 Approval of Change Order #2

34 Approval of Pay Application for Change Order #2
35 Presentation to the Board to Approve Change Order #2
36 Approval of Change Order #3
37 Approval of Pay Application for Change Order #3
38 Misrepresentation to the Board to Approve Change Order #3
39 Approval of Contract Extension $1,635,976.00 Contract Extension (Change
Order 7 to HVAC)
40 Approval of Pay Application for $1,635,976.00 Contract Extension (Change
Order 7 to HVAC)
41 Misrepresentation to the Board to Approve Contract Extension
42 Approval of Addendum #1
43 Approval of Pay Application for Addendum # 1
44 Approval of Addendum #2
69
d. Mail Fraud, 18 U.S.C. §1341
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
having devised a scheme to obtain money by means of false and fraudulent representations,
knowingly caused to be delivered by mail a writing, for the purpose of executing such
scheme, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1341, which constitutes racketeering activity pursuant to
O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(xxix).
.. ,. .. :' .:,
Act Scope , ..
...
.,
46 Sending letter by U.S. mail on April 23, 2008 to the State Department of Education
attempting to justify illegal award on Columbia Project-Deferred SPLOST II
70
e. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, did as an agent of the DeKalb
County School System, a governmental entity which receives, in anyone year period,
benefits in excess of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) under a Federal program, obtain by
fraud more than Five Thousand ($5000.00) in United States currency, the property of the
DeKalb County School System, without their authority, as detailed below, which constitutes
theft chargeable under the laws of the United States, punishable by imprisonment for more
than one year, and racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3 (9)(B).
" ....... "{
Act Act Involving Theft 1\.Ifiount ....
, ". .'
, ' .."
;. ' . ... .' .... : .,.'... :",
47 Authorizing Change Order #2 issued on 3/1 0/2006 $ 179,690.00

48 Authorizing Change Order #3 issued on 7/25/2006 $ 268,766.54
49 Authorizing Addendum #1 issued on 5/1/2007 $ 625,000.00
50 Authorizing Addendum #2 issued on 12/13/2007 $ 52,000.00
71
2. TONY POPE
a. Theft by Taking, O.C.G.A. §16-8-2
TONY POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb, did
owner of said property, as detailed below, which constitutes racketeering activity pursuant to
O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(ix).
.: .... , .. "
.. .'
,Act Issued To
,
Scope ·:AnlQunt ., ~.
. ' .. ". ' ..
51 Benefit received from Change Order #2 TONY POPE $ 179,690.00

52 Benefit received from Change Order #3 TONY POPE $ 268,766.54
53 Benefit received from Addendum #1 TONY POPE $ 625,000.00
54 Benefit received from Addendum #2 TONY POPE $ 52,000.00
72
engage in the below listed acts involving theft, which constitute racketeering activity
pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act, Act Involving Theft Date Anto'ullt .,
..
. :.,
, ...... -':.
55 Submission of Change Order #2 3/10/06 $ 176,690.00

.",:)
56 Submission of Pay Application for Change Order #2
'>'....:.".: . ,
57 Submission of Change Order #3 7/25/06 $ 286,766.54
.""
58 Submission of Pay Application for Change Order #3
..C.
59 Submission of Contract Extension subsequently entitled 6/12/07 $ 1,635,976.00

Change Order #7
".... ...... :(~ ...•..
60 Submission of Pay Application for Contract Extension
...:::>:" . ,";
61 Submission to the Board to Approve Contract Extension 8/13/07 $ 8,179,867.20
subsequently entitled Change Order #7
62 Submission of Addendum # 1
"
'. "
"
..
.... ........ , .. ".
63 Submission of Pay Application for Addendum # 1 ..
..
"
.""" :',
64 Submission of Addendum #2 12/13/07 $ 52,000.00

:.. , .:.
65 Submission of Pay Application for Addendum #2 "
:
. , ,', . ,,'
73
3. CRAWFORD LEWIS
a. Thefts and Acts Involving Theft
CRAWFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of
DeKalb, did engage in the below listed acts involving theft, which constitute racketeering
activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3 (9)(A)(ix) & (B).
Act Act Relatingto and Involving Theft Date An1ou~t

:'.' . . ..{.
,.' .:; :::':)
66 Approva~ of Change Order #2 3/10/06 $176,690.00

67 Approval of Change Order #3 7/25/06 $286,766.54
68 Approval of Contract Extension subsequently entitled 6/12/07 $1,635,976.00
Change Order #7
:·'···i ,: .'.
69 Approval of Pay Application for Contract Extension ... ::

, .' ':. '.':' :'".:: .' :'
". '.::' ',':
70 Approval of Addendum # 1 I
:'t
, .... ' .... ".: ....... ,:.;:::
71 Approval of Addendum #2 12/13/07 $52,000.00

.: ' .

.' .... :' .: ....
74
b. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666
DeKalb, did as an agent of the DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity which
receives, in anyone year period, benefits in excess of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00)
under a Federal program, obtain by fraud more than Five Thousand ($5000.00) in United
States currency, the property of the DeKalb County School System, without their authority,
as detailed below, which constitutes theft chargeable under the laws of the United States,
punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, and racketeering activity pursuant to
O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Act Involving Theft . Amount
73 Authorizing Change Order #2 issued on 3/1 0/2006 $ 179,690.00

74 Authorizing Change Order #3 issued on 7/25/2006 $ 268,766.54
75 Authorizing Addendum #1 issued on 5/1/2007 $ 625,000
76 Authorizing Addendum #2 issued on 12/13/2007 $ 52,000
75
B. McNair Elementary School
1. PAT POPE
a. Theft by Taking, O.C.G.A. § 16-8-2
PATRICA POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
did unlawfully take United States currency, an amount greater than Five Hundred dollars
O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Scope 'Amount' ,::',:

"
,
,,":,': "
77 Payment for Architectural work to C.D. MOODY CONSTRUCTION $ 166,242.00

COMPANY SUBSEQUENTLY paid to A. VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC.
76
pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Act Involving Theft

.,
.'
78 Termination of Brown Design Group

79 Changing of the judging criteria to weigh in favor of awarding the process of C.D.
MOODY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
80 Ordering subordinates to change their score so that C.D. MOODY CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY would win the award
81 Holding a n1eeting with the representative of C.D. MOODY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
and not holding the same meeting with any representative of a competing company
82 Giving TONY POPE inside information about the scoring criteria and particular
design that would be favored
77
c. Mail Fraud, 18 U.S.C. §1341
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
having devised a scheme to obtain money by means of false and fraudulent representations,
knowingly caused to be delivered by mail a writing, for the purpose of executing such
scheme, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1341, which constitutes racketeering activity pursuant to
O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(xxix).
Scope
83 Sending a letter by U.S. mail to the Georgia Department of Education notifying them
of the delivery method of McNair Project and representing Vemell Barnes to be the
sole architect of record
78
d. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666
County School Systen1, a governmental entity which receives, in anyone year period,
benefits in excess of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) under a Federal progran1, obtain by
fraud more than Five Thousand ($5000.00) in United States currency, the property of the
DeKalb County School System, without their authority, as detailed below, which constitutes
theft chargeable under the laws of the United States, punishable by imprisonment for more
than one year, and racketeering activity pursuant to a.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B).
'" ,::.::,.
Act Act Involving Theft "'.:
,
'::::" "
84 Award of$11,900,000 contract to C.D. MOODY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY on

April 20, 2006
79
2. TONY POPE
a. Theft by Taking, a.C.G.A. §16-8-2
a.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(ix) & (B).
Amount
«<
Act Scope
I
85 Accepting Payments for Architectural work on McNair which he $ 166,242.00

was not entitled to perform
80
pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3 (9)(B).
86 Receiving inside information about the scoring criteria and particular design that
would be favored
87 Failing to attach his name to documents involving McNair Project so that his
participation would not be disclosed
88 Retrieving his architectural drawings from DeKalb County Permits Office and
replacing them with drawings that had Vemell Barnes' stamp and seal
81
c. Wire Fraud, 18 U.S.C. §1343
unlawfully devise a scheme to obtain money by means of false representations, and did
transmit by means of wire, in interstate commerce, writings, for the purpose of executing
such scheme which are acts involving theft chargeable under the laws of the United States
(18 U.S.C. 1343), and which constitute racketeering activity pursuant to a.C.G.A. §16-14-3
(9)(A)(xxix).
:
Act· Date Sent to: Substance .. , :
89 2/17/2006 Vemell Barnes "We are pursuing the McNair Cluster, not Arabia
Mountain. Darlene accidently copied both
packages."
90 2/22/2006 Vemell Barnes, "David, I am pressed to wrap up Columbia and

C.D. Moody, Dave Fairfield today and tomorrow. Can we meet
Fragala Friday afternoon to discuss approach [sic] to this
project at your office. If this is a good day, let me
know what time and I will coordinate with
Vernel!. Thanks."
91 2/27/2006 Vemell Barnes, "I am attaching a copy of the floor plan diagram
C.D. Moody, Dave for the existing building for your records. There
Fragala are 28 classrooms PAT We would have to bring
this one up 27 room PAT Almost double size. We
need to check on this. Not sure if there is
adequate land to support a building of such size."
92 3/4/2006 Ron Nance J2 "In developing a new school, are there any state
guidelines or criteria to determining the size of
the athletic and play fields for schools? We are
doing a proposal for an addition/possible new
school on existing site and the classroon1
requirements have doubled what was on the
original site."
32 State of Georgia Department of Education.
82
93 3/4/2006 PAT POPE Forward of email response from Ron Nance
94 3/6/2006 Vemell Barnes, "Please send all request to Vemel!. I am
C.D. Moody, Dave assisting on this project but cannot be
Fragala disclosed. From now on, all correspondence
goes to him. You can [carbon copy] me. I will
track down those figures." (emphasis added)
95 3/10/2006 James Camacho "James: Please give Diane Maddox a ring at

C.D. Moody Construction. We are pursuing a
design/build package for DeKalb County
Schools and there is a kitchen and cafeteria
component."
96 3/20/2006 Vemell Barnes "Vemell: Pat indicated that the existing gym
does not have toilets with the building. Have
you seen the inside of the complex? If does not
have toilets, then there is not much worth
keeping with the building."
97 3/20/2006 Vemell Barnes, "David, [p]roposed new building wall
C.D. Moody, Dave section to be 6" 16 gauge metal studs,
Fragala 6"rock mineral wool insulation, ~"
sheathing, building wrap and 7.5 mm
eterpan-MD board. Exposed stainless steel
fasteners. You should have the contract
from the Gammon Project where we
considered the use of the product. I spoke
with Pat about it and she was fine. Asked
us to use on existing building also to tie
thee [sic} two together."
98 3/20/2006 Vernell Barnes, "Spoke with DeKalb today concerning the

C.D. Moody, Dave project off line. One major issue is to make
Fragala sure that the existing utilities can support the
proposed building and additions. WE need
to make sure we all know where the utilities
enter the site, etc. Was also told that the
existing multi-purpose building might have
toilets. Need to verify. If it does not, then it
is more than likely that we should loose the
building and building new. I am working on
an updated site plan to send to all later today.
In our cost proposal, we need to provide a
cost to tear down the existing components we
are salvaging and build new in same design
pattern. Pat expressed that the Board
Member is really interested in a new
building." (emphasis added)
83
99 4/13/2006 C.D. Moody "We will be in your office tomorrow at 1 p.m.
to review the [architectural and engineering]
contracts and proposed [architectural]
arrangement for this project."
100 7/5/2006 .Vernell Barnes, "The documents received from Barnes where
C.D. Moody, Dave [sic] not stamped. Due to the timing of this, I
Fragala have stamped the drawings and taking for
pem1it today. I will send a cover letter stating
that I was doing peer review and stamping
for the demolition to put in file. Since these
will have to remain on site, my name might
be seen."
84
3. CRAWFORD LEWIS
DeKalb, did unlawfully take United States currency, an amount greater than Five Hundred
dollars ($500.00), the property of the DeKalb County School System, with the intent to
deprive said owner of said property, as detailed below, which constitutes racketeering
activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B).
A:ct Scope .. Amoutli· . '" .~
101 Authorizing an Award of$II,900,000 contract to C.D. MOODY $ 166,242.00

CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PART OF which subsequently paid A.
85
3. COINTA MOODY
a. Fraudulent Documents within the Jurisdiction of a Political

Subdivision D.C.G.A. §16-1 0-20
COINTA MOODY, in the county of DeKalb, as an employee of DCSS, did
unlawfully make a false writing, knowing the same to contain false information, to wit:
notarizing payment applications of TONY POPE to C.D. MOODY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
which were used to obtain payment of funds received from DCSS, as detailed below, which
constitute racketeering activity pursuant to D.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(xv).
. .... :'
Act Description
.
. .;,
102 Notarizing TONY POPE's Pay Application #1 dated 8-23-2006
105 Notarizing TONY POPE's Waiver and Release Claim accompanying Pay
Application #5 dated 6-28-2007
86
C. Mountain Industrial Center
1. PAT POPE
PATRICA POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb,
did unlawfully take United States currency, an amount greater than Five Hundred dollars
($500.00), the exact amount being unknown to the Grand Jury, the property of the DeKalb
County School System, with the intent to deprive said owner of said property, as detailed
below, which constitutes racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Scope Amou·llt
106 Award of a $17,646,000.00 Contract to Nrx-FowLER containing a $855,831.00

$4.85% design fee which was paid to A. VrNCENT POPE &
AssocrATES, INC. ($855,831.00)
107 Award of a $2,443,839.00 contract containing TONY POPE's ongoing
name as designer to study MIC move
87
pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3 (9)(A)(ix).

..,.,:-.'.,.
':.' .::'
108 Terminating Brown Design Group to clear the way to re-bid the project and ensure
the employment TONY POPE
109 Failure to execute the contract with CDH PARTNERS coupled with the simultaneous
re-bid of the project as a Design/Bid construction delivery method to ensure the
employment TONY POPE
110 Failure to re-advertise once the character of the project was changed significantly
111 Presenting the DECA portion of the MIC award to the Board knowing that the
project, as changed, did not comply with Competitive Award Statutes
112 Award of a $17,646,000.00 Contract to NIX-FoWLER containing a $4.85% design
fee which was paid to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. ($855,831.00)
113 Award of a $2,443,839.00 Change Order containing TONY POPE's name as
designer to study MIC move
88
d. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, did as an agent of the
DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity which receives, in anyone year
period, benefits in excess of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) under a Federal program,
obtain by fraud more than Five Thousand ($5000.00) in United States currency, the property
of the DeKalb County School System, without their authority, as detailed below, which
constitutes theft chargeable under the laws of the United States, punishable by imprisonnlent
for more than one year, and racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B).
........
Act· Act Involving Theft

.. ... .:.. : .: ......,
114 Award of a $17,646,000.00 Contract to NiX-FoWLER containing a $4.85% design fee
which was paid to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. in the amount of$855,831.00
115 Award of a $2,443,839.00 Change Order which benefited TONY POPE
89
2. TONY POPE
a. Theft by Taking, a.e.G.A. §16-8-2
a.c.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act· ;.-
. ~.'
.
Scope .. ; A~c~~:.~t ":
. . ::~ . .::: ::{.:>.:,;;;.":
116 Receipt of $855,831.00 for design work he was not was not entitled $855,831.00
to perform
117 Receipt of payment for design to study MIC move he was not ongoing
entitled to perform
90
pursuant to a.C.G.A. § 16-14-3 (9)(B).
Act Act Involving Theft Amount.·.. ·..

... .. . . .: . .
.:
.. .. ...... :".:
..: : :.:.
118 Submission of multiple pay applications to receive payment on a $855,831.00

$855,831.00 for design work he was not was not entitled to
perform
119 Submission of multiple pay applications to receive payment for ongoIng
design to study MIC move he was not entitled to perform
91
3. CRAWFORD LEWIS
a. Acts Involving Theft
DeKalb, did engage in the below listed acts involving theft, which constitute racketeering
activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3 (9)(B).
, :,,: , ..
Act ,Act'ln'volv'ing Theft '
I
, ,
120 Knowing TONY POPE was working on the MIC project, he signed an award of
a $17,646,000.00 Contract to NIX-FoWLER which contained a $4.85% design fee
benefiting TONY POPE
121 Knowing TONY POPE was working on the MIC Project, he signed award ofa
$2,443,839.00 Change Order as designer to study MIC move
92
b. Theft under 18 U.S.C. §666
CRAWFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, did as an agent of
the DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity which receives, in anyone year
period, benefits in excess of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) under a Federal program,
obtain by fraud more than Five Thousand ($5000.00) in United States currency, the property
of the DeKalb County School System, without their authority, as detailed below, which
constitutes theft chargeable under the laws of the United States, punishable by imprisonment
for more than one year, and racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3 (9)(B).

..
122 Authorizing Award of a $17,646,000.00 Contract to NIX-FoWLER containing a $4.850/0

design fee which went to TONY POPE
123 Authorizing Award ofa $2,443,839.00 Change Order benefiting TONY POPE
93
D. Arabia Mountain High School
1. PAT POPE
a. Forgery - First Degree, O.C.G.A. § 16-9-1
unlawfully alter a writing to wit: score tally sheets, in such a manner that the writing as
altered purports to have been made by authority of one who did not give such authority, as
detailed below, which constitute racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3
(9)(A)(i)(viii).
Act Tally Sheets containing information PAT POPE forged
125 Tally Sheet of Wayne Tyler

126 Tally Sheet of Roberta Unger
127 Tally Sheet of Joseph Brew
94
b. False Statements and Writings, O.C.G.A. § 16-1 0-20
unlawfully use false writings in a matter within the jurisdiction of a political subdivision of
the State of Georgia knowing the same to be false, as detailed below, which constitutes
racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3 (9)(A)(i)(xv).
....
.':.'
Tally Sheets containing information added by PAT P()PE
.
Act ".':
.. .. , .... ".' .. " .... ,':'. . ' .. :," .. : .
128 Tally Sheet of Wayne Tyler

129 Tally Sheet of Roberta Unger
130 Tally Sheet of Joseph Brew
95
c. Bribery, a.C.G.A. §16-10-2
unlawfully as an employee of the DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity,
directly and indirectly solicit a thing of value, to wit: event tickets, from TURNER
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY by inducing the reasonable belief that the tickets would influence
her performance to perform any official action, as detailed below, which constitute
racketeering activity pursuant to a.c.G .A. §16-14-3(9)(A)(i)(xiii).
Act Gifts SolicitedJlnd.Accepted

.'
.':<::;;
... '-:. . . .' .> >.
131 Six (6) tickets for four (4) days to the 2008 Masters totaling Thirty-Five
Thousand Four Hundred dollars ($35,400.00)
132 Approximately twenty-four (24) box seat tickets to the Atlanta Hawks
133 Two (2) tickets to the 2009 Masters totaling Three Thousand Three Hundred
Ninety-Nine dollars ($3399.00)
96
d. Bribery under 18 U.S.C. §666
benefits in excess ofTen Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) under a Federal program, did
corruptly accept a thing of value of Five Thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or more from a
person, intending to be influenced in connection with the business of DeKalb County School
System, and which is an act of bribery chargeable under the laws of the United States
punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, and which constitute racketeering
activity pursuant to a.C.G.A. § 16-14-3 (9)(B).
.. :.
Act Gifts Demanded and Received
..
97
2. CRAWFORD LEWIS
a. Bribery, a.C.G.A. §16-1 0-2
DeKalb, did unlawfully as an employee of the DeKalb County School Systen1, a governmental
entity, directly and indirectly solicited a thing of value, to wit: tickets, from TURNER
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY by inducing the reasonable belief that the tickets would influence
his performance to perform any official action, as detailed below, which constitute racketeering
activity pursuant to a.C.G.A. §16-14-3(9)(A)(i)(xiii).
. . .'
Act, Gifts Demanded and Received .....
';
,.' .. . . ,>., .•
136 Approximately twenty-four (24) box seat tickets to the Atlanta Hawks
Ninety-Nine dollars ($3399.00)
98
b. Bribery under 18 U.S.C. §666
period, benefits in excess of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) under a Federal program, did
99
E. Other Criminal Acts
1. CRAWFORD LEWIS
DeKalb, did unlawfully appropriate the property of the DeKalb County School System, with
the intent to deprive said owner of said property, as detailed below, which constitute
racketeering activity pursuant to a.C.G.A. §16-l4-3 (9)(B).
139 Illegal purchase of his county-issued car
140 Illegal use of county-issued gasoline to travel to The Ritz Carlton in Reynolds
Plantation for personal activity with a female employee which was not
authorized
141 Paying for a hotel room at The Ritz Carlton in Reynolds Plantation for personal
activity with a female employee which was not authorized
142 Paying for a hotel room at The Lucayan in the Bahamas for a personal vacation
100
b. False Statements, O.C.G.A. § 16-1 0-20
eRA WFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of

DeKalb, did knowingly and willfully conceal a material fact, to wit: that Anthony Pope was
performing additional work which he was not allowed to perform and receiving payment
thereon involving DCSS construction projects, from Investigator W.C. Nix, a matter within
the jurisdiction of the Dekalb County District Attorney's Office, a political subdivision of the
State of Georgia, as detailed below and which constitute racketeering activity pursuant to
O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3 (9)(A)(xv).
Act Description
143 By denying that PAT POPE was blackmailing or had blackmailed him
144 By concealing the fact that in 2007, TONY POPE approached DRS, a project
management company, and represented that DRS would win a contract with
DCSS if they partnered with him in ajoint venture
101
c. Bribery, O.C.G.A. §16-10-2
eRAWFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, did unlawfully as an

employee of the DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity, accepted a thing of
value, to wit: tickets, from GUDE MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC. by inducing the reasonable
belief that the tickets would influence his performance to perform any official action, as
detailed below, which constitutes racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14
3(9)(A)(i)(xiii).

..
145 Tickets to the 2008 Atlanta Mayor's Ball valued at $5000.00 paid on December
10,2007
102
d. Bribery under 18 U.S.C. §666
period, benefits in excess ofTen Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) under a Federal program, did
activity pursuant to a.c.G .A. § 16-14-3 (9)(B).
146 Tickets to the 2008 Atlanta Mayor's Ball valued at $5000.00 paid on December
10,2007
103
e. Hindering of a Law Enforcement Officer, O.C.G.A. § 16-1 0-24
eRAWFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, did unlawfully

hinder a law enforcement officer, Investigator W.C. Nix, in the lawful discharge of his
official duties as detailed below, which constitute racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A.
§ 16-14-3(9)(B).
. ... ..
Act Description ......

,.
I
.:...... .... . .., ....
147 Ordering the Director of Internal Affairs, as the recipient of subpoenas

investigating the actions of PAT POPE, to forward those subpoenas to PAT
POPE as the person to respond to those subpoenas
148 By concealing the fact from Inv. Clay Nix when questioned that in 2007, TONY
POPE approached DRS, a project management company, and represented that
URS would win a contract with DCSS if they partnered with him in a joint
venture
149 By contacting Chief Assistant District Attorney Don Geary to attempt to stop the
investigation into the school system until after the completion of the civil
lawsuit
104
f. Tampering with Evidence, O.C.G.A. §16-10-94
CRAWFORD LEWIS, individually and as a party to a crime, in the County of
DeKalb, with the intent to unlawfully obstruct the prosecution by the DeKalb District
Attorney's Office, did conceal the evidence detailed below, production of which was called
for by a subpoena served on DCSS, and by ordering the recipient of the subpoena to forward
it to a target of the investigation PAT POPE for handling, which constitutes racketeering
activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(xvi).
Act Items Requested by Subpoena from DCSS and·concealedbyPj\:tp·QrE'}

.. ". .- ..
:', '": . - - ": .'. -, ; ': "': .. -. ~
150 From Columbia

• All bid submissions for Additions and HVAC projects; Original bid tabs
for Additions and HVAC projects
• Original bid tabs for Additions and HVAC projects
• All Department of Education correspondence
• All payment records and pay applications
• All pre-bid documents in reference to the AlE scope of work and
construction scope of work
• The Original contract with A. Vincent Pope and Associates; and, Non-
collusion affidavits
From McNair Cluster Elementary

• Complete RFP responses by C.D. MOODY and NIX-FoWLER
• BAFO responses by C.D. MOODY and NIX-FoWLER
• Original evaluations of RFP interviews
• Contract and correspondence with BROWN DESIGN GROUP
• All meeting minutes of the Board regarding McNair
From MIC
• All evaluation/tally sheets for MIC # 1
• All handwritten evaluation sheets for MIC #2
• All meeting minutes
• Offeror form for Hogan Construction for MIC #2
• BAFO form for Hogan Construction for MIC #2
• All sealed fee proposals
105
Arabia Mountain
• All contracts
• All correspondence
• All change orders with backup docunlentation
• All payment applications and payment records
• All original pre-proposal documents, RFP responses, and evaluation/tally
sheets
106
2. PAT POPE
engage in the below listed acts involving theft which are punishable by imprisonment of
more than a year, and which constitute racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3
(9)(B).
151 Submitting paperwork and a check to purchase of county vehicle for her benefit
contrary to law
152 Submission of excessive overtime payment for her DCSS assigned secretary in
order which included conducting PAT POPE's personal business
107
b. Bribery, D.C.G.A. §16-10-2
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, , in the county of DeKalb, did
unlawfully as an employee of the DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity,
directly and indirectly solicited a thing of value, to wit: tickets, from GUDE MANAGEMENT by
inducing the reasonable belief that the tickets would influence her performance in an official
action, as detailed below, which constitute racketeering activity pursuant to D.C.G.A. §16-14
3(9)(A)(i)(xiii).
.... . '.,::
Act ,
Gifts Demanded and Received ...
,
....
153 Multiple tickets to the Atlanta Falcons valued at $3391.25 for her and TONY
POPE
154 Four (4) Tickets to the 2007 Final Four Tournament valued at $18,622.00 for her
and TONY POPE purchased on February 14,2007 and March 28,2007
155 Numerous Tickets to the Fox Theater valued $920.00 for her and TONY POPE.
156 Multiple Tickets to the 2008 Atlanta Mayor's Ball for her, TONY POPE, and
eRAWFORD LEWIS valued at $5000.00 paid on December 10, 2007
108
c. Bribery under 18 U.S.C. §666
benefits in excess of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) under a Federal program, did
activity pursuant to a.C.G.A. § 16-14-3 (9)(B).
157 Four (4) Tickets to the 2007 Final Four Tournament valued at $18,622.0025 for
PAT POPE from GUDE MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC.
Thousand Four Hundred dollars ($35,400.00) from TURNER CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY for PAT POPE
109
d. Hindering of a Law Enforcement Officer, O.C.G.A. §16-1 0-24
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, , in the county of DeKalb, did
unlawfully hinder a law enforcement officer, W.C. Nix, in the lawful discharge of his official
duties by not submitting documents requested by subpoena, as detailed below which
constitute racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(B)
Act' Items Requested by Subpoena from DCSS andconcealedi>Y'PAT,PIDPE

'. .. ." .
159 From Columbia
• Original bid tabs for Additions and HVAC .projects
• The Original contract with A. Vincent Pope and Associates; and, Non

From MIC
• All evaluation/tally sheets for MIC #1
Arabia Mountain
• All contracts
110
• All change orders with backup documentation
sheets
111
e. Tampering with Evidence, O.C.G.A. §16-10-94
PAT POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of DeKalb, with
the intent to unlawfully obstruct the prosecution by the DeKalb District Attorney's Office of
herself and the other defendants, did conceal the evidence detailed below, production of
which was called for by a subpoena served on DCSS and forwarded to PAT POPE, which
constitutes racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. §16-14-3 (9)(A)(xvi).
Act.· Item~ Requested by Subpoena from DCSS and concealed by EAt .POPE··
., ..
160 From Columbia

• Original bid tabs for Additions and HVAC projects
• The Original contract with A. Vincent Pope and Associates; and, Non-

From MIC
• All evaluation/tally sheets for MIC #1
Arabia Mountain
112
• All contracts
• All change orders with backup documentation
sheets
113
3. TONY POPE
a. Hindering of a Law Enforcement Officer, O.C.G.A. §16-10-24
TONY POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, did unlawfully obstruct a law
enforcement officer, Investigator W.C. Nix, in the lawful discharge of his official duties
when he did not comply with Mr. Nix's subpoena request, as detailed below.
Act Items Requested by Subpoena from DCSS and not turned overby TOl'(Y POPE . .
.. . ... :
161 • not producing any correspondence for the time period of August/September 2008
March 2009
• not producing any pay applications, executed Change Orders, sketches, drawings,
or proposals
114
b. Tampering with Evidence, O.C.G.A. § 16-1 0-94
TONY POPE, individually and as a party to a crime, in the County of DeKalb,
with the intent to unlawfully obstruct the prosecution by the DeKalb District Attorney's
Office of herself and the other defendants, did conceal the evidence detailed below,
production of which was called for by a subpoena served on DCSS and forwarded to PAT
POPE, which constitutes racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3 (9)(A)(xvi).
Act Items Requested by Subpoena from ness and not turned over by TONY POPE
162 • not producing any correspondence for the time period of August/September 2008
March 2009
• not producing any pay applications, executed Change Orders, sketches, drawings,
or proposals
115
4. COINTA MOODY
COINTA MOODY individually and as a party to a crime, in the county of
DeKalb, did unlawfully appropriate property, to wit: money, the property of the DeKalb
County School System, with the intent to deprive said owner of said property, as detailed
below which constitute racketeering activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3 (9)(B).

... ;
:. ...... : :: .....
163 Submission of excessive overtime payment to DCSS for work which was not
authorized
116
b. Bribery, a.C.G.A. §16-10-2
COINTA MOODY, individually and as a party to a crime, did unlawfully as an
employee of the DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity, directly and indirectly
solicited a thing of value, to wit: tickets, by inducing the reasonable belief that the tickets
would influence her performance in an official action, as detailed below, which constitute
racketeering activity pursuant to a.c.G.A. §16-14-3(9)(A)(i)(xiii).

.' . .., ..
164 Multiple tickets to the Atlanta Falcons valued at $3391.25 for PAT POPE from
GUDE MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC.
165 Four (4) Tickets to the 2007 Final Four Tournament valued at $18,622.00 25 for
166 Numerous Tickets to the Fox Theater valued $920.00 for PAT POPE from GUDE
MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC.
168 Approxinlately twenty-five (25) box seat tickets to the Atlanta Hawks from
TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for PAT POPE.
Ninety-Nine dollars valued at $3399.00 from TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
for PAT POPE
117
c. Bribery under 18 U.S.C. §666
COINTA MOODY, individually and as a party to a crime did as an agent of the
DeKalb County School System, a governmental entity which receives, in anyone year
period, benefits in excess of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) under a Federal program, did
:'
Act . Gifts Demanded and Received ::;
.: ... ... . ... \:
170 Four (4) Tickets to the 2007 Final Four Tournament valued at $18,622.00 25 for
118
COUNT 2
PATRICIA REID, a/k1a PAT POPE,
ANTHONY VINCENT POPE a/k1a TONY POPE,
CRAWFORD LEWIS, and
COINTA MOODY

ACT -- ACQUIRING PROPERTY THROUGH A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING
ACTIVITY, in violation ofO.C.G.A. 16-14-4(a), for the said accused persons, in the County
of DeKalb and State of Georgia, between the 10th day of October, 2005, and the 5th day
of March, 2010, did unlawfully acquire, directly and indirectly, control of money and other
personal property through the pattern of racketeering activity alleged in Count One above
and incorporated herein by reference,

119
COUNT 3
PATRICIA REID, a/k/a PAT POPE,
ANTHONY VINCENT POPE a/k/a TONY POPE,
CRAWFORD LEWIS, and
COINTA MOODY

ACT -- CONSPIRACY TO CONDUCT AND PARTICIPATE IN AN ENTERPRISE
THROUGH A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY for that the said accused,
in the State of Georgia and County of DeKalb, between the 10th day of October, 2005,
and the 5th day of March, 2010, did unlawfully conspire and endeavor to conduct and
participate in an enterprise, to wit: DeKalb County School System, through the pattern of
racketeering activity alleged in Count I above and incorporated herein by reference,

120
COUNT 4
ANTHONY VINCENT POPE a/k/a TONY POPE,
CRAWFORD LEWIS, and
COINTA MOODY

ACT -- CONSPIRACY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY THROUGH A PATTERN OF
RACKETEERING ACTIVITY for that the said accused, in the State of Georgia and
County of DeKalb, between the 10th day of October, 2005, and the 5th day of March,
2010, did unlawfully conspire and endeavor to acquire and maintain, directly and indirectly,
an interest in and control n10ney and of personal property, through the pattern of racketeering
activity alleged in Count I above
and incorporated herein by reference
DEKALB SlTPERIOR COURT

121
COUNTS

CRAWFORD LEWIS, and
COINTA MOODY
THEFT BY TAKING BY A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE for that the said accused, in

the State of Georgia and County of DeKalb, between the 10th day of October, 2005, and
the 5th day of March, 2010, did unlawfully take money from DeKalb County School
System, the property of DeKalb County School Systen1, with the intention of depriving said
owner of said property, in breach of the accused's duty as such employee

GWENDOLYN KEYES FLEMING, District AttOTI1ey
122
COUNT 6
PATRICIA REID, a/k/a PAT POPE, and

CRAWFORD LEWIS
BRIBERY for that the said accused, in the State of Georgia and County of DeKalb, between
the 10th day of October, 2005, and the 5th day of March, 2010, being employees of the
DeKalb County School System, an agency of the State of Georgia, did unlawfully accept
tickets to sporting events, things of value, by inducing the reasonable belief that the giving of
said thing would influence the awarding of contracts by the DeKalb County School System,
an official action

123
COUNT 7
with the offense of
FALSIFYING PUBLIC RECORDS for that the said accused, in the State of Georgia and
County of DeKalb, between the 10th day of October, 2005, and the 5th day of March,
2010, being employees of the DeKalb County School System, an agency of the State of
Georgia, did unlawfully falsify a document belonging to a public office within this state, to
wit: the DeKalb County School System

124
EXHIBIT LIST
Ex DESCRIPTION
A Board Policy DJE
>/
COLUMBIA PROJECT ...
B A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 's architectural contract for Columbia
Project
C1 DCSS letter dated 6/6/05 to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. regarding
Change Order #1 to its contract
C2 Letter PAT POPE prepared dated 6/16/2005 on behalf of A. VINCENT POPE &
ASSOCIATES, INC. regarding Change Order # 1
D Letter fron1 A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. dated March 9, 2006·to DCSS
officially requesting an increase in fixed architectural fees
E Change Order #2 to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. for Columbia Project
($176,690) containing signatures of CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE
F TONY POPE's Letter to DCSS, dated 7/27/06 with a copy to PAT POPE
requesting an increase to his architectural fees (leading to C03)
G Change Order #3 for Columbia to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. for
($268,766.54) containing signatures ofCRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE
H MEMORANDUM dated 4/24/07 from TONY POPE to DCSS proposing an
"extension" to MERIT'S HVAC and Replacements Contract
I Change Order #7 Agenda Item with supporting documents submitted by PAT
POPE to the Board on June 11,2007, requesting authority to extend Merit's
HVAC construction contract in the amount of $1 ,635,976.00
J Change Order #7 for Columbia HVAC issued to MERIT ON 6/12/07 for
$268,766.54 containing signatures ofCRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE
labeled as being related to DCSS project number 421-104
K Agenda Item submitted by PAT POPE to the Board on 8/6/07 and 8/13/07 to
Award a Deferred SPLOST II Contract to MERIT
L1 Notice of Award from PAT POPE to MERIT of Deferred SPLOST II Contract
L2 Deferred SPLOST II contract with MERIT containing signatures of
CRAWFORD LEWIS and PAT POPE
M. Letter dated 5/16/08 from State DOE that it due to DCSS' failure to advertise
the new scope of work, in violation of the Competitive Award Process in giving
this contract to MERIT, the state of Georgia would not approve the construction
documents
M2 Letter dated 9/30/08 from State DOE that it would not reimburse DCSS
$1,000,000 because ofDCSS' failure to advertise the new scope of work, in
violation of the Competitive Award Process
N Letter dated 4/23/08 from PAT POPE to State DOE falsely representing that the
DCSS construction counsel had approved her actions of not advertising the new
scope of work and failing to place the project out for bid or RFP
O. Letter dated 3/20/07 labeled "RFP for Architectural Services" from PAT POPE
to TONY POPE to provide a proposal for the architectural work related to the
DefurredSPLOSTIIwmk
125
O2 Letter dated 5/1/07 from TONY POPE responding to PAT POPE's solicitation
stating his fee would be $625,000.00
P Addendum # 1 dated 5/1 /07
Q Addendum #2 dated 12/13/07
' ;'
McNAIR PROJECT
R McNair Project Notice of Award
S Stop Work Order dated 1/5/2006 from DCSS to BDG with PAT POPE cc'd
T Letter dated 1/17/2006 CRAWFORD LEWIS wrote to Audra Brown-Cooper
of BDG terminating the AlE Services Contract
U Letter re: DCSS payment of $105,532 for work already completed
V RFP for McNair changed to Design-Build
W Addendum #3 to the McNair RFP changing initial evaluation criteria
X1-Xs DCSS request for all offerors to submit their BAFO on McNair
Y C.D. MOODY'S initial offer for $12,484,000
Z C.D. MOODY'S 1st BAFO
AA NIX-FoWLER'S BAFO
BB 1- TONY POPE's pre-award e-mails
BB ll
CC TONY POPE's post-award email
'.'
MICPROJECT
DD Contract CDH signed and returned which PAT POPE/DCSS did not sign
EE DCSS email request to THE CHAMPION to place an advertisement soliciting
RFP's for this MIC project using the Design-Build delivery method
FF The actual RFP announcing a mandatory pre-proposal conference for all
potential offerors to be held on September 11, 2007
GG Sign-in sheet for 9/11/07 meeting showing representatives of A. VINCENT POPE
& ASSOCIATES, INC. present
HH Minutes of 9/11/07 Board meeting clear!y documenting DCSS' intention to
award a Design-Build contract for the renovation or "build out" of the entire
MIC structure with the DECA portion to be completed first
II Email: TONY POPE emailed Amy Sue Mann PAT POPE, and MERIT
CONSTRUCTION on 9/9/2007 asking for a "request of information" on MIC
project
JJ Follow-up email from TONY POPE requesting clarification on behalf of MERIT
Design team
KK DCSS' addendum to the RFP request 9/24/07 scheduling a 2nd mandatory pre-
proposal conference on 10/4/07
LL Minutes of Board meeting reiterating the intention of DCSS to award one
contract that would encompass all needed design and construction services to
renovate or "build out" the entire MIC structure
MM Proposal and Interview Tally Sheets
NN 1- Faxes: PAT POPE, faxed requests to all offerors for BAFO'S to negotiate the
NN 3 BAFO price between the remaining companies for the MIC project
00 HOGAN'S BAFO
PP DCSS Notice of AWARD to HOGAN solely for the build-out of the DECA
126
portion of the MIC structure
QQ
AGENDA ITEM: contract award of the DECA portion of the MIC project to the
Board
RR DCSS Advertisement - advertisement for a Design-Build project for the
remainder of the MIC structure
SS
Sign-in sheet listing attendees at pre-proposal conference including
representatives from NIX-FoWLER CONSTRUCTION, HOGAN, and A. VINCENT
POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TT DCSS AWARD of the MIC project in April of2008 to the NIX-FoWLER and A.
VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. team, minus the construction related to
DECA.
UU PAT POPE issued a memo dated 3/26/08 to Amy Sue Mann (DCSS) falsely
representing that legal counsel had reviewed the issue and there was no conflict
VV Agenda Item for PAT POPE's presentation of the MIC II project to the Board
WW Contract for MIC II for $17,646,000.00 contained a design fee of 4.85% which
was paid to A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. ($855,831.00) :.
,...
ARABIA Project . . . ~: ,.
XX Forged tally sheets inaccurately scoring TURNER higher in the category of
Approach, during the selection tin1e
OTHER ACTS
YY
CRAWFORD LEWIS check purchasing his car 1 year old car for $5,766.25
ZZ Receipt: Cost of new tires on LEWIS' car installed immediately before purchase
AAA Receipt: Cost of repairs on LEWIS' car immediately before purchase I
BBB Check and Title related to PAT POPE purchase of 2005 Explorer for $5,422.50
CCC Documents related to cost of repairs on POPE's car immediately before
purchase ($1,342.49)
DDD CRAWFORD LEWIS' Purchase-Card receipt showing purchase of lodging
The Lucayan
EEE CRAWFORD LEWIS' Purchase-Card receipt showing purchase of lodging
The Ritz Carlton at Reynolds Plantation
FFF Documents related to COINTA MOODY's overtime pay
127

Crawford Lewis DeKalb RICO Indictment

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Crawford Lewis DeKalb RICO Indictment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State Witness - lnv. W.e.

DEKALB COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

.• x ~~\: "~':~ '~':\~ "I, ~· I' MAY TERM 2010

PATRICIA REID, a/k/a PAT POPE, all counts

ANTHONY VINCENT POPEa/k/a TONY POPE, counts 1-4

CRAWFORD LEWIS, counts 1-6

...~. COINTA MOODY, counts 1-5

Ct. 1: Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ­

Conducting and Participating in an Enterprise Through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity

Ct. 2: Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act­

Acquiring Property Through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity

Ct. 3: Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ­

Conspiracy to Participate in an Enterprise Through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity

(O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4 (c»

Ct. 4: Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act­

Conspiracy.to Acquire Property Through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity

(O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4 (c»

Ct 5: Theft by Taking By a Government Employee

Ct 7: Falsifying Public Records

This the of - - - - - - 2 0 . This the of 20 .

District Attorney District Attorney

Defendant's Attorney Defendant's Attorney

This the of 20 This the of 20

District Attorney District Attorney

Defendant's Attorney Defendant's Attorney

1. Latisha G. Dear, Foreperson

3. DOTT91 D~oee~~ek 15. Marjorie Heywood

PART I - THE NATURE OF THE CASE 8

PART II - DEFINITIONAL SECTION 10

Change Order (C/O): : 10

Competitive Sealed Bidding: 11

Competitive Sealed Proposals: 11

Georgia Competitive Award Statutes: 12

Public Works Construction: 12

Request For Proposal (RFP): 13

Responsible Bidder or Responsible Offeror: 13

Responsive Bidder or Responsive Offeror: 13

Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST): 13

Stated Cost Limitation: 14

B. GA Department ofEducation Policies /4

DOE Regulation 160-5-4.11(1)(b): Code FGAD 14

C. DeKalb County School System Policies and Regulations /5

DCSS Purchasing Policy: DJE 15

DCSS Facilities Projects Contracts Regulation: FGD-R 15

PART [11- THE ENTERPRISE 16

PART IV - THE DEFENDANTS 17

2. Employment of PAT POPE as CFO of A. VINCENT POPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 21

3. Employment of PAT POPE as COO of DCSS 22

B. Acts Involving Fraud 23

a. Columbia High School Project 25

8. Fraud via Errors and Omissions 35

b. McNair Cluster Elementary Project 37

1. Background and Overview 37

2. Termination of the Architect 38

3. PAT POPE changes the Criteria 39

4. PAT POPE holds Improper BAFO Meeting .4]

6. Money to TONY POPE 44

7. Concealment of TONY POPE's participation in the McNair Project .44

8. TONY POPE's Post-Award Efforts to Conceal His Participation .47

2. PAT POPE fires the Architect of Record .48

3. Advertising One Scope of Work .49

4. PAT POPE limits Scope of Work 50

5. PAT POPE's misrepresentation to the Board of Education 51

6. Fraudulent Creation of "MIC II" 51

Ct. 1: Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

Ct. 2: Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

Ct. 3: Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

Ct. 4: Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act