I

Approved, SCAO Original - Court 2nd copy - Plaintiff

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

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

Frank A. Cusum1mo, Jr. P4278 l
16188 Jenny Drive
Macom!J, MI. 48042-2250
T:(586) 453-4084 F:586-722;2072 cusumanolaw@gmail.co

lSUMMONS I NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT: In the name of the people of the State of Michigan you are notified:
1. You are being sued.
2. YOU HAVE 21 DAYS after receiving this summons to file a written answer with the court and serve a copy on the other party
ortake other lawful action with the court(28 days if you were served by mail or you were served outside this state). (MCR2.111 rcn
3. If you do not answer or take other action within the time allowed, ju ment a nt e
a inst you for the relief demanded
in the complaint.
Issued

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

This document must be sealed by the seal of the court.

J COMPLAINT J !nstruction: The following is information that is required to be in the caption ofevery complaint and is to be completed
by the plaintiff. Actual a/legations and the claim for relief must be stated on additional complaint pages and attached to this form.
Family Division Cases
0
There isno other pending or resolved action within the jurisdiction of the family division of circuit court involving the family or family
members of the parties. ·
0 An action within the jurisdiction of the family division of the circuit court involving the family or family members of the parties has
been previously filed in · Court.
The action O remains Dis no longer pending. The docket number and the judge assigned to the action are:
!Docket no. !Judge Bar no.

General Civil Cases

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

!Docket no. I Judge Bar no.

!VENUE I
Plaintiff(s) residence (include city, township, or village) Defendant(s) residence (include city, township, or village)
MACOMB,MI. MACOMB,MI.
Place where action arose or business conducted
1 MACOMB, MI.

Date ig ture of attorney/plaintiff

If you require special accommodations to use the court because of a disability or if you require a f eign language interpreter to help
you fully participate in court proceedings, please contact the court immediately to make arrangements.
MC01 (3/08) SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT MCR 2.102(8)(11), MCR 2.104, l\/!CR 2.105, MCR 2.107, MCR 2.113{C)(2)(a). (b), MCR 3.206(A)
 STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MACOMB

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

Plaintiff, Hon. ~k<.;;."':> 81tiL!,.Jfff1{'-=.
-vs-
DINO BUCCI,
Defendant.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _!
FRANK A. CUSUMANO, JR P42781
Pro Se Plaintiff - Attorney at Law
16188 Jenny Drive
Macomb, Ml. 48042-2250
(586) 453-4084
Fax (586-722-2072
RECEIVED
Email: cusumanolaw@gmail.com AUG O9 2018
-------------'------------------/
COMPLAINT FOR QUO WARRANTO TO REMOVE DINO BUCCI
FROM THE PUBLIC OFFICE OF TRUSTEE OF MACOMB TOWNSHIP

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Frank A Cusumano, Jr. and for his Complaint states as

follows:
THE PARTIES

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

of Macomb, County of Macomb, State of Michigan.

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

Macomb, County of Macomb, State of Michigan and is a putative holder of the public

office known as Trustee of Macomb Township.

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

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

4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to MGR 3.306(0) and MCL 600.1621.

COMMON ALLEGATIONS

1
5. Macomb Township is a unit of local government organized under the laws of the

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

6. Beginning in November 2000 and through the present date, BUCCI was/is a sitting

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

government of the Township of Macomb, and a "Trustee" (MCL 41.1 b(f)) and "officer"

(MCL 41.1 b(a)) under the Constitution and laws of the State of Michigan.

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

Macomb Township Trustee.

8. On or about January 1, 2017 BUCCI assumed office for a four (4) year term as

putative Trustee of Macomb Township said current term ending under Michigan

Election Law on or about January 1, 2021.

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

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

10. The acts complained against BUCCI which are the subject of this Complaint arose

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

Township and those acts (accepting bribes) rendered him ineligible to assume office

and "forever disqualified" him from holding public office.

11. On or about April 30, 2018, Plaintiff sent a request to the Michigan Attorney General

(MAG) in which Plaintiff requested that MAG commence an action in quo warranto to

remove Bucci from the public office of Trustee of Macomb Township. Exhibit A-

Letter to MAG 04/30/2018.

12. Plaintiff has confirmed with the MAG that the April 30, 2018 request was received.

2
13. The MAG has not formally or informally responded to Plaintiff's April 30, 2018 reques

and has otherwise refused to act on the request to initiate quo warranto against

BUCCI.

14. Plaintiff seeks an order of quo warranto removing BUCCI from office pursuant to MC

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

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE I (2014)

15. Between August 2014 and November 5, 2014, Dino Bucci did corruptly solicit and

demand for BUCCl's personal benefit and did accept, $66,024 in cash from

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

after conspiring with Sorrentino to have Sorrentino bid $254,500 on the concrete

paving job for Macomb Township Town Hall wherein Sorrentino had agreed to accept

$181,055 for his part in the transaction and, after payment to a third party who

actually performed the work, did bargain and pay the differential of $66,024 in cash to

BUCCI and withheld $7,000 balance to cover Sorrentine's anticipated tax liability

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

BUCCI BRIBE I."

16. Sorrentino acted as a shill and a conduit in the paying of the difference between the

actual cost of the project and the amounts paid by the taxpayers of Macomb

Township to BUCCI, however, the transactions itself was a "bribe" as that term is

defined under Michigan law because the BUCCI vote on the contract was influenced

by payment under the SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE I.

3
17. Sorrentino was promised future Macomb Township contract work by BUCCI which

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

Board of Trustees.

18. Sorrentino admitted his individual involvement in the money laundering as the fundin

vehicle to pay the SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE I in the U.S. District Court. Exhibit B

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

(ED Mich).

19. Sorrentino attested that on or about November 5, 2014, Sorrentino paid BUCCI the

$66,024 in cash, which was withdrawn from the Sorrentino checking account and

broken down into six (6) separate checks for $9,429 and one check for $9450 that

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

20. According to Sorrentino in his Rule 11 guilty plea bargain, the checks were written

and cashed for less than $10,000 in order to disguise the transaction and evade

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

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

750.118.

22. Payment of the SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE I took place in 2014 while BUCCI held

the public office of Trustee of Macomb Township.

8. SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE II (2015)

23. On or about March 2015 Bucci did solicit and accept for his personal benefit, at least

$30,000 in cash from Sorrentino, which was a bribe of a public officer after conspiring

with Sorrentino to bid $264,703 for the Macomb Township fire department concrete

paving project wherein Sorrentino had agreed to accept $30,000 less for his role in

4
 that repaving project than that paid by Macomb Township, and the work being

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

24. Sorrentino was acting as a shill and conduit in the paying of the bribe to BUCCI in

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

25. Sorrentino paid BUCCI the $30,000 in cash, which was a bribe as defined at MCL

750.118. Id.

26. Payment of the SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE II took place while BUCCI held the

public office of Trustee of Macomb Township.

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

27. On or about July 2015, BUCCI acted in concert and did conspire with Macomb

Township Trustee Clifford Freitas ("FREITAS") to obtain and then unlawfully disclose

confidential bidding information from Macomb Township Departments and records

related to the waste removal contract to Charles (Chuck) Rizzo, then an employee

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

28. FREITAS, who worked for RIZZO, did not serve on the Macomb Township Board of

Trustees sub-committee which dealt with the waste removal contract, so he enlisted

as a co-conspirator BUCCI who did have access to the confidential and sensitive bid

information.

29. FREITAS approached RIZZO and offered his assistance to procure the award in

favor of Rizzo for payment of money. Exhibit C- USA v. Clifford Freitas, 2016-cr-

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

30. As a direct result of the unlawful actions of FREITAS and BUCCI acting in concert

with him, RIZZO was awarded the contract which had a value of over $17 million

dollars.
5
31. The factual basis of the Rule 11 guilty plea by FREITAS was confirmed by him in

open Court and under oath on June 1, 2017. Exhibit D- USA v. Clifford Freitas,

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

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

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

based on historic information or what?

THE DEFENDANT [FREITAS]: Yes. Historic information and

information given from a fellow trustee to -- who was on the committee.

THE COURT: Or who might have had better specific

knowledge about the way the bids were coming in?

THE DEFENDANT [FREITAS]: Yes.

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

publicly, but they, there was knowledge within the elected
officials apparently?

THE DEFENDANT [FREITAS}: Yes.

THE COURT: As to how the bidding was going?

THE DEFENDANT [FREITAS]: Correct.

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

passed on to the executive at your company?

THE DEFENDANT [FREITAS}: Yes.

THE COURT: Which the company used to its financial

advantage, perhaps?

THE DEFENDANT [FREITAS}: Yes.

THE COURT: And acquired the contract?

THE DEFENDANT [FREITAS}: Yes.

Emphasis added. Id. pp. 26-27.

33.At his sentencing on July 31, 2018, FREITAS identified, either directly or through his

criminal defense counsel, that BUCCI was the Trustee who had procured and fed
6
 FREITAS the confidential bid information to aid RIZZO and FREITAS in the rigging

the bidding process in RIZZO's favor and utilized the corruptly obtained confidential

information to tailor the RIZZO bid amount to corruptly obtain the Macomb Township

waste removal contract.

34. FREITAS approached BUCCI about obtaining the confidential and sensitive waste

removal bid details, and BUCCI knew FREITAS was a payroll employee of RIZZO at

the time.

35. Despite actual knowledge of the conflict of interest and breach of fiduciary duties

involved by both FREITAS and BUCCI, BUCCI supplied the confidential and

sensitive bid information to FREITAS for transmittal to RIZZO.

36. BUCCI and FREITAS concealed the scheme described above from the Macomb

Township Board of Trustees and the public and the scheme is hereinafter referenced

as the FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE.

37. FREITAS, for his part, accepted a $7500 bribe, as defined at MCL 750. 118, which

was disguised as a "loan," complete with fabricated "loan documents" being

generated after the CFO of RIZZO protested that the cash payment to an elected

official Macomb Township Trustee under the circumstances was improper, and the

CFO questioned the legality of not withholding payroll taxes as required under the

U.S. Internal Revenue Code.

38. On July 31, 2018 at sentencing in USA v. Clifford Freitas, 2016-cr-20732, ED Mich.,

FREITAS again admitted his role in the FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE and the
-
involvement of BUCCI stating, either directly or through his criminal defense counsel,

that FREITAS had been "groomed" by BUCCI and other elected officials in the

"Macomb Township way of doing business."

7
39. FREITAS later accepted a $35,000 bribe in connection with an attempt to influence

the Macomb Township Board of Trustees into voting to allow assessment of the

waste removal fees charged by RIZZO to residents onto the township tax bills,

payment by the township, and subjecting those unable to make timely payment to

township liens and possible foreclosure, and thus providing a substantial saving to

RIZZO in collection costs.

40. The RIZZO waste removal fee assessment policy never came to fruition as the

revelations of the corruption scandals began to unfold in Macomb Township

government.

41. BUCCI, in his role of public officer - Trustee of Macomb Township, voted "YES" on

the RIZZO waste removal contract knowing that said vote was directly influenced by

his acting in concert with FREITAS to rig the bidding process in favor of RIZZO under

the FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE scheme.

42. The BUCCI "YES" votes on the RIZZO waste removal contract are recorded in the

minutes of the Macomb Township Board of Trustees' meetings and the subject "YES"

votes were directly influenced by the FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE.

COUNT I - QUO WARRANTO

SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE I (2014)

43. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as alleged

herein.

44. MCL 750.118 states, inter alia:

Public Officer Accepting a Bribe - Any executive, legislative or judicial officer

who shall corruptly accept any gift or gratuity, or any promise to make any gift,
or to do any act beneficial to such officer, under an agreement, or with an
understanding that his vote, opinion or judgment shall be given in any
particular manner, or upon a particular side of any ques!io~, c~use ?~
proceeding, which is or may be by law brought before him in his off1c1al
8
 capacity, or that in such capacity, he shall make any particular nomination or
appointment, shall forfeit his office, and be forever disqualified to hold any
public office, trust or appointment under the constitution or laws of this
state .... " (Emphasis added).

45. MCL 750.118 does not states that the public office holder shall forfeit his office "upon

conviction" under the statute (a felony) and the plain meaning of the statute indicates

that a public office holder found to have accepted a bribe has forfeited his/her office

and is forever disqualified from holding public office again.

46. In the context of this quo warranto action, Plaintiff need only prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that BUCCI accepted or conspired with one or more

co-conspirators to accept a bribe before his current term of office.

47. BUCCI forfeited his office as Trustee when he accepted the SORRENTINO-BUCCI I

bribe in November 2014. MCL 750.118.

48. BUCCI was disqualified from holding any public office in Michigan, including that of

Macomb Township Trustee, since his acceptance of the SORRENTINO-BUCCI I

bribe in November 2014. MCL 750.118.

49. BUCCI should be removed from office upon a finding by a preponderance of the

evidence of the prohibited action (the SORRENTINO-BUCCI I bribe in November

2014) occurred and rendered the public office holder, BUCCI, as ineligible to assume

any public office after the SORRENTINO-BUCCI I bribe, including his current term

and from which BUCCI was forever disqualified from holding since acceptance of the

SORRENTINO-BUCCI I bribe.

50. On November 8, 2016, BUCCI was ineligible to assume office, and ineligible hold the

office of public of Macomb Township Trustee because he had "forfeited" the right to

hold office when taking and participating in the corrupt "pay to play" bribes from

9
 Sorrentino in 2014 and 2015 and, additionally, conspired and aided and abetted the

unlawful FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE activity.

51. BUCCI has wrongfully usurped the office of Macomb Township Trustee, wrongfully

holds that public office and should be removed by order of this Court.

COUNT II - QUO WARRANTO

SORRENTINO-BUCCI BRIBE II (2015)

52. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as alleged

herein.

53. BUCCI forfeited his office as Trustee when he accepted the SORRENTINO-BUCCI II

bribe in March 2015.

54. BUCCI was forever disqualified from holding any public office, including Macomb

Township Trustee, since acceptance of the SORRENTINO-BUCCI II bribe in March

2015.

55. BUCCI should be removed from office upon a finding by a preponderance of the

evidence of the prohibited action (the SORRENTINO-BUCCI II bribe in March 2015)

occurred and rendered the public office holder, BUCCI, as ineligible to assume any

public office after the SORRENTINO-BUCCI II bribe, including his current term that

commenced on January 1, 2017, and is "forever disqualified" from holding office

since March 2015.

56. On January 1, 2017, BUCCI was ineligible to assume public office, and ineligible hold

the office of public of Macomb Township Trustee because he had "forfeited" the right

to hold office when accepting the SORRENTINO-BUCCI II bribe in March 2015.

57. BUCCI has wrongfully usurped the office of Macomb Township Trustee, wrongfully

holds that public office and should be removed by order of this Court.

10
 COUNT Ill - QUO WARRANTO
CONCERT OF ACTION
FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE (2015)

58. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as alleged

herein.

59. FREITAS and BUCCI at all times pertinent hereto owed a fiduciary duty to the

electors of Macomb Township.

60. The actions of FREITAS and BUCCI breached their fiduciary duties as Trustees of

Macomb Township under their actions in the FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE.

61. The BUCCI and FREITAS actions were concerted to accomplish the breach of their

fiduciary duties owed as Trustees of Macomb Township and concerted to breach and

to violate their respective oaths of office.

62. The intent and purpose of the FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE was to, and did,

influence BUCCl's vote(s) as Trustee of Macomb Township and was to, and did,

influence BUCCl's vote(s) as member of any relevant Macomb Township Board of

Trustees' sub-committee related to the waste management contract award in favor of

RIZZO.

63. The bribe by RIZZO to FREITAS was a "bribe" as defined at MCL 750.118 as the

ends of the enterprise that was intended and designed to influence BUCCl's "vote,

opinion or judgment shall be given in any particular manner, or upon a particular side

of any question, cause or proceeding, which is or may be by law brought before him

in his official capacity," to wit: the Macomb Township waste removal contract. MCL

750. 118.

64. The intent and purpose of the procurement and disclosure of the confidential and

sensitive bid information to RIZZO by FREITAS and BUCCI, acting in concert with

11
 FREITAS, was to deliberately, unlawfully and corruptly aid RIZZO in the competitive

bidding process and achieve the common design and purpose of the successful

award of a waste hauling contract with Macomb Township in favor of RIZZO through

the corruption of the Trustees and public officers, FREITAS and BUCCI.

65. The actions by FREITAS and BUCCI were, by express agreement or tacit

agreement, designed to violate the prohibition of bribe taking by a public officer at

MCL 750.118, and did breach the fiduciary duties of both FREITAS and BUCCI.

66. The actions of BUCCI under the FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE facilitated the

corrupt quid pro quo bribery scheme between FREITAS and RIZZO for the

confidential information provided by BUCCI to RIZZO.

67. BUCCI is jointly and severally liable and should be removed from office because the

bribe paid to FREITAS by RIZZO is imputed to BUCCI under the theory of concert of

action.

68. BUCCI caused the harm complained herein, bribery of a public officer - Trustee

FREITAS, and as a result BUCCI should be removed from the office of Macomb

Township Trustee as having forfeited his office, because but for the supplying of the

confidential information by BUCCI, FREITAS would not have been abl.e to deliver on

his corrupt promise to corruptly supply the confidential information, and could not

have violated his fiduciary duties to the electors of Macomb Township.

69. In the alternative, if BUCCI caused no harm himself to Macomb Township, BUCCI is

liable for quo warranto removal for the harm (bribery of a public officer) caused by his

fellow Trustee FREITAS because BUCCI, FREITAS and RIZZO all acted jointly.

Cousineau v. Ford Motor Co., 140 Mich.App. 19, 33; 363 N.W.2d 721, (1985).

12
70. BUCCI has wrongfully usurped the office of Macomb Township Trustee, wrongfully

holds that public office and should be removed by order of this Court.

COUNT IV - QUO WARRANTO

AIDING AND ABETTING/CONSPIRACY
FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE (2015)

71. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as alleged

herein.

72. BUCCI is liable and should be removed from office because he aided and abetted

and conspired with RIZZO and FREITAS to facilitate the corrupt bribe paid by RIZZO

to FREITAS.

73. The $7500 bribe between RIZZO and FREITAS is imputed to BUCCI as an aider and

abettor and co-conspirator of RIZZO and FREITAS who acted jointly with BUCCI to

accomplish the ends of the conspiracy, to wit: the corrupt acquisition of the Macomb

Township waste removal contract by RIZZO.

74. BUCCI has wrongfully usurped the office of Macomb Township Trustee, wrongfully

holds that public office and should be removed by order of this Court.

75. BUCCI forfeited his office as Trustee when he participated in the FREITAS/RIZZO-

BUCCI BRIBE in 2015.

76. BUCCI was forever disqualified from holding any public office, including Macomb

Township Trustee, when he aided and abetted and acted as a co-conspirator in the

since acceptance of the FREITAS/RIZZO-BUCCI BRIBE in 2015.

WHEREFORE, in light of the serious nature of these issues, Plaintiff requests this

Court to expedite all scheduling matters and entertain a show cause hearing at the

conclusion of a 60-day period of discovery and thereafter grant Plaintiff an Order of quo

13
 warranto determining that BUCCI, is not properly holding the office of Macomb Township

Trustee, removing BUCCI from the office of Macomb Township Trustee, declaring the

office of Macomb Township Trustee vacant and to grant Plaintiff further relief as this

Court determines to be fair and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

Isl Frank A. Cusumano, Jr. P42781

LAW OFFICE OF FRANK A. CUSUMANO, JR.
Attorney for the Plaintiff

Dated: August 6, 2018

14
 ~
' I

EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit A - Letter to MAG 04/30/2018.

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

cr-20568 (ED Mich).

Exhibit C - USA v. Clifford Freitas, 2016-cr-20732, ED Mich., Rule 11 Plea Agreement, p. 3.

Exhibit D - USA v. Clifford Freitas, 2016-cr-20732, ED Mich., 06/01/2017, Tr. p.24, II. 11-15.

15
EXHIBIT A
QUO WARRANTO
COMPLAINT
 Frank A. Cusumano, Jr.
Attorney and Counselor at Law·
16188 Jenny Drive
Macomb, Ml. 48042-2250
(586) 453-4084
Fax: {586) 722-2072
cusumanolaw@gmail.com

VIA Facsimile 517-373-3042

VIA email:- miag@michigan.gov

April 30, 2018

William D. Schuette
G. Mennen Williams Building, 7th floor
525 W. Ottawa St.
P.O. Box 30212
Lansing, Ml 48909

RE: Dino Bucci's Forfeit of Macomb Township Trustee Office (MCL 750.118) and Complaint for
Quo Warranto

Dear Mr. Schuette:

This letter and the requested relief is submitted on behalf of Michael O'Lear individually and
Frank A. Cusumano, Jr. individually.

On or about November 15, 2017, Macomb Township Trustee Dino Bucci (Bucci) was indicted for a
variety of felony violations under the United States Code. A copy of the indictment is attached as
Exhibit A. The factual predicate of the indictment sets forth facts supporting violation of MCL
750.174 and MCL 750.118.

Focusing on MCL 750.118, the statute states, inter alia:

Public officer accepting bribe-Any executive, legislative or judicial officer who shall
corruptly accept any gift or gratuity, or any promise to make any gift, or to do any act
beneficial to such officer, under an agreement, or with an understanding that his vote,
opinion or judgment shall he given in any particuli:lr manner, or upon a particular side of
any.question, cause or proceeding, which is or may be by law brought before him in his
official capacity, or that in such capacity ... shall forfeit hi506ice, and be forever
disqualified.. to -·hold
. .
any .public office,. trust or appointment under the constitution or laws
of this state, fil!Q.shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprJsonment in the state
prison not more. than 10 years, or by fine of not more than 5,000 dollars.
2jPaie
William D. Schuette
Michigan Attorney General
April 30, 2018

Because MCL 750.118 distinguishes between the civil consequence of engaging in the proscribed
behavior, e.g. accepting the bribe(s), "and'; the criminal 'Consequence, a felony punish able by up
to ten years in ~tate prison, and a fine, I submit that there is sufficient evidence to institute quo
warranto proceedin&.s. to remove Bucci since by operation of law he /{forfeited" the office when
acceptrng the bribe(s) on or about 20:J.4-2015, b.efore Bucci's candidacy in the November 8, 2016
election. Moreover, since Bucci was. '1disqualified from holding any public office" from the date of
the forfeiture onwards, ·his candidacy for his current te'rm was void ab initio. Thus, Bucci once
elected· is now wrongfully holding the public office of Macomb Township Trustee and shouf d be
removed.

Bucci continues to draw a paycheck and benefits from Macomb Township despite not having
attended a single meeting of the Macomb Township Board of Trustees since ahd including
November 20, 2017. The Macomb Township Board has been urged by the citizenry to initiate
action against Bucci to recover sums rightfully due and owing to Macomb Township, however,
the majority of Trustees campaigned and ran wlth Bucci as a slate of candidates in the 2016
electron cycle, sharing signage and comingling funds and in kind. contributions.

Please consider this letter a formal request for quo warranto proceedings against Bucci to
remove him from office under MCR 3.306 and MCL 600.4501. Since, Michael J. O'Lear received
the next highest number of votes, it is requested that O'Lear be named under MCR 3.306(C} as
the person rightfully entitled to the vacated office in any quo warranto action. Exhibit B.

I remain,

enclosure
EXHIBIT A
 r"\ ;0
2:17-cr-20775-TL _·APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg l uf 28 Pg ID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICIUGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case:2: 17-cr-20775
Judge: Berg, Terrence G.
MJ: Patti, Anthony P.
vs. Ried: 11-15-2017 At 11:45AM
INDI USA VS BUCCI {DP)

VIOLATIONS:
18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy)
D-1 DINO BUCCI, 18 U.S.C. § 666(a) (Bribery and Theft)
18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Extortion)
18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail :Fraud)
Defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a) (Money Laundering)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _!

INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury charges:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

At all times relevant to this Indictment, all of the following was true:

1. DINO BUCCI was an agent of the Charter Township of Macomb,

Michigan ("Macomb Township"), as well as an agent of Macomb County, Michigan

("Macomb County"), both local government entities that received federal assistance

in excess of$10,000 in each ofthe calendar years 2008 through 2016.

2. From November 2000, through December 2016, DINO BUCCI served

as an elected trustee of Macomb Township.

I
 r-"\ ,~
2:17-cr-20775-TG...... ~APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 2 ui 28 Pg ID 2

3. From October 3, 1994, through December 2016, DINO BUCCI

worked as an employee of the Macomb County Department of Public Works.

4. Christopher Sorrentino owned a construction business that operated in

Macomb Township and Macomb County.

5. Clifford Freitas served as an elected trustee of Macomb Township in

2016.

6. Charles B. Rizzo was the Chief Executive Officer of Rizzo

Environmental Services for most of 2016. In 2016, Rizzo Environmental Services

had a contract with Macomb Township to perform garbage collection and hauling

services for the township's residents.

7. Paulin Modi was an owner and employee of an engineering firm, which

perfonned work for Macomb County and Macomb Township.

8. Developer A was a business owner who conducted real estate

development and other business activities in Macomb Township and Macomb

County.

9. Residential Development R was a housing development project

proposed by Developer A in Macomb Township.

10. Developer B was a business owner who conducted real estate

development and other business activities in Macomb Township and Macomb

j'
County.

2
 0 r'\
2:17-cr-20775-TG,= APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 3 ur 28 Pg ID 3

11. Engineering Firm A was a Michigan business that provided engineering

consulting services to Macomb Township and Macomb County.

I 2. Engineering Firm B was a Michigan business that provided engineering

consulting services to Macomb Township and Macomb County.

13. Engineering Firm C was a Michigan business that provided

engineering consulting services to Macomb County and Macomb Township.

14. All "Overt Acts" referred to in this indictment occurred in the Eastern

District of Michigan.

COUNT ONE

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

Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds)

D-1 DINOBUCCI

THE CONSPIRACY

I. Paragraphs I through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-

alleged and incorporated by reference in Count One as if fully set forth herein.

2. From in or about 2008, through in or about November 2016, in the

Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, defendant DINO BUCCI did

unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with

p·ublic officials in Macomb County, Paulin Modi, employees of Engineering Firm

A, employees of Engineering Firm B, employees of Engineering Firm C, an

employee of Macomb Township, and other individuals to corruptly solicit and

3
 ~\

2:17-cr-20775-;\ _3-APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg'+ of 28 Pg !D 4

demand for the benefit of any person, and accept and agree to accept, tens of

thousands of dollars in cash, hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal checks,

tickets to fundraising events, tickets to golf outings, and gift cards for DINO BUCCI

and his co-conspirators, with the intent to influence and reward DINO BUCCI and

other public officials conspiring with DINO BUCCI in connection with a business,

transaction, or series of transactions of Macomb Township and Macomb County

involving $5,000 or more, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section

666(a).

MANNER AND MEANS BY WHICH THE

CONSPIRACY WAS CARRIED OUT

3. It was part of the conspiracy that DINO BUCCI directed his co-

conspirators to provide tens of thousands of dollars in cash, personal checks, and gift

cards to BUCCI in exchange for BUCCI and his co-conspirators causing

Engineering Firm A and Engineering Firm B to be awarded consulting work and

contracts with Macomb Township and Macomb County.

4. It was further part of the conspiracy that DINO BUCCI directed Paulin

Modi, employees of Engineering Firms A, B, and C, and other contractors, to pay

hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase tickets to political fundraising events

for BUCCI and BUCCl's political allies, such as golf outings and dinners, in

exchange for BUCCI and his co-conspirators causing these individuals and entities

4
 0 /\.
2:17-cr-20775-TL. ....-APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 5 uf 28 Pg ID 5

to be awarded consulting work and contracts with Macomb Township and Macomb

County.

5. It was further part of the conspiracy that Paulin Modi, employees of

Engineering Firms A, B, and C, and contractors provided items of value to DINO

BUCCI and his co-conspirators, including cash, personal checks (including for the

purchase of tickets to political fundraising events), and gift cards, in order to obtain

consulting work and contracts with Macomb Township and Macomb County.

OVERT ACTS

In furtherance of the unlawful conspiracy, and to effect its objectives, the co-

conspirators committed the following overt acts, among others:

6. In or about 2008, DINO BUCCI told an employee of Engineering Firm

A that he would like Engineering Firm A to give him $3,500 in cash. Employees of

Engineering Firm A decided to give the cash to DINO BUCCI because they

understood that they needed to "pay-to-play" in order to do business in Macomb

County and Macomb Township.

7. In or about 2008, an employee of Engineering Firm A delivered a sealed

envelope containing $3,500 in cash to DINO BUCCI in the parking lot of

Engineering Firm A.

8. In or about 2012, Paulin Modi paid thousands of dollars to DINO

BUCCI in order to purchase tickets to political fundraising events. Modj knew that

5
 ,0 //\
2:17-cr-20775-TGi.,,-APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 6 u, 28 Pg ID 6

he had to pay the money in order to "get in the game" and get engineering work with

Macomb Township and Macomb County. Eventually, during the course of the

conspiracy, Modi and Engineering Firm Cpaid tens of thousands of do11ars to DINO

BUCCI for tickets to fundraising events.

9. In or about June of 2012, DINO BUCCI asked an individual who had

formerly worked for Engineering Firm A, to speak with employees at Engineering

Firm A and tell them that BUCCI wanted $500 in cash.

10. In or about June of 2012, that same individual, with the consent of

employees of Engineering Firm A, gave DINO BUCCI $500 cash.

11. In or about June of 2012, an employee of Engineering Firm A

reimbursed that individual for the $500 cash payment to DINO BUCCI, by giving

the individual $500 in Costco gift cards.

12. In or about the winter of 2014, the individual who had formerly worked

for Engineering Firm A arranged a meeting between DINO BUCCI and an

employee of Engineering Firm B, who had been seeking to obtain field service work

for his firm from Macomb Township.

13. In or about the spring of 2014, at the Macomb Township Hall, DINO

BUCCI told an employee of Engineering Firm B that he wanted $10,000 in cash.

In making the demand for $10,000 in cash, DINO BUCCI stated: "Let's see if

6
 ------ - · - · --· -
0, 0.
2:17-cr-20775-TG._ APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 7 0, 28 Pg ID 7

they're going to play or not." The employee refused to give $10,000 in cash to

DINO BUCCI.

14. In response to the employee's refusal, DINO BUCCI shut down all

work by Engineering Firm B with Macomb Township in the spring of 2014.

15. In the spring of 2014, executives of Engineering Firm B then removed

the employee from any dealings with DINO BUCCI, Macomb Township, or

Macomb County.

16. In the spring of 2014, Engineering Firm B gave money to DINO

BUCCI in the form of thousands of dollars in checks identified as campaign

contributions.

17. In the spring of 2014, in exchange for the money paid by Engineering

Firm B, DINO BUCCI allowed Engineering Firm B to restart its business with

Macomb Township.

18. In or about December of 2014, an employee of Engineering Firm B,

who had previously worked for Engineering Firm A, provided DINO BUCCI with

a personal check for $2,000 made out to an individual whose name was provided by

BUCCI.

19. In or about December of 2014, an employee of Engineering Firm B,

at DINO BUCCI's request, gave BUCCI a $500 gift card for Partridge Creek Mall.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 666(a).

7
 0 0
2:17-cr-20775-1 J-APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg o of 28 Pg ID 8

COUNTTWO

(18 U.S.C. §§ 371 & 666(a)- Conspiracy to commit Bribery and Theft
Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds)

D-1 DINO BUCCI

THE CONSPIRACY

1. Paragraphs I through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-

alleged and incorporated by reference in Count Two as if fully set forth herein.

2. From in or about the summer of 2014, until in or about the summer of

2016, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, defendant DINO

BUCCI and Christopher Sorrentino, did unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly com-

bine, conspire, confederate, and agree, with each other and with other individuals,

to:

a. corruptly solicit and demand for the benefit of any person, and accept and

agree to accept, at least $96,000 in cash for DINO BUCCI, with the intent

to influence and reward BUCCI in connection with a business, transaction,

or series of transactions of Macomb Township involving $5,000 or more;

and

b. embezzle, steal and obtain by fraud, over $96,000 belonging to· Macomb

Township,

in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a).

8
 . ---··-·-····· ... -·-·-·--
r",., ;I',
2:17-cr-20775-T~~.:APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 9 v1 28 Pg ID 9

MANNER AND MEANS BY WIDCH THE

CONSPIRACY WAS CARRIED OUT

3. It was part of the conspiracy that DINO BUCCI directed Christopher

Sorrentino to submit bids for Macomb Township paving projects, including concrete

paving at the township hall and township fire station.

4. DINO BUCCI arranged for another contractor ("the pavmg

contractor") to do the paving work at the township hall and township fire station for

amounts less than Sorrentino's bids. DINO BUCCI made it appear that the paving

contractor was a subcontractor of Sorrentino, when in truth and in fact, Sorrentino

had never met the paving contractor and was unaware of the paving contractor's

existence until the contractor began work on the township hall project.

5. At DINO BUCCl's direction, Sorrentino paid the paving contractor

once Sorrentino was paid the higher bid amount by the township.

6. At DINO BUCCI's direction, Sorrentino paid BUCCI cash kickbacks

that amounted to the difference between the cost of the paving work and the

excessive bid by Sorrentino, less money for Sorrentino to pay a portion of his income

taxes.

7. DINO BUCCI promised to give Sorrentino future work with Macomb

Township in exchange for the cash kickbacks and Sorrentino's assistance in

BUCCl's embezzlement from Macomb Township.

9
 !~ /",,.

2:17-cr-20775-TGb,..;pp Doc#l Filedll/15/17 Pg10ur28 PglD10

8. DINO BUCCI directed pavmg work to Sorrentino for private

individuals, in order to compensate Sorrentino for assisting BUCCI in BUCCI's

efforts to embezzle money from Macomb Township. For this private work, DINO

BUCCI required Sorrentino to give BUCCI a portion of Sorrentino's profit. When

Sorrentino was late in giving BUCCI his portion of the profit on the private work,

BUCCI used his public position to block or delay Sorrentino from receiving

payment on his work for Macomb County on public works.

OVERT ACTS

In furtherance of the unlawful conspiracy, and to effect its objectives, the co-

conspirators committed the following overt acts, among others:

9. In or about August 2014, DINO BUCCI arranged for the paving

contractor to repave the township hall parking lot for the price of $181,055.

10. On or about August 20, 2014, at the direction of DINO BUCCI,

Sorrentino submitted a bid of $257,800 for the township hall parking lot repaving

project.

11. On or about November 3, 2014, Sorrentino negotiated a check from

Macomb Township in the amount of$254,500.

12. On or about November 5, 2014, Sorrentino cashed and caused other

people to cash a series of checks in amounts under $10,000 in order to obtain $66,000

in cash to give to DINO BUCCI.

10
 0 !",
2:17-cr-20775-TL LAPP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 1.L of 28 Pg ID 11

13. On or about November 5, 2014, Sorrentino met with DINO BUCCI at

the Macomb County Department of Public Works office in Clinton Township,

Michigan, where Sorrentino gave BUCCI a bag containing $66,000 in cash. During

the meeting, DINO BUCCI yelled at Sorrentino for not being secretive enough in

giving BUCCI the bag of money.

14. In or about March 2015, DINO BUCCI arranged for the paving

contractor to repave the township fire department parking lot for the price of

$210,000.

15. In or about March 2015, at the direction of DINO BUCCI, Sorrentino

submitted a bid of $264,703 for the township fire department parking lot repaving

project.

16. In or about November 2015, Sorrentino negotiated a check dated

November 5, 2015, from Macomb Township in the amount of$264,703.

17. In or about November 2015, and in the months soon thereafter, at the

direction of DINO BUCCI, Sorrentino gave BUCCI at least $30,000 in cash.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 666(a).

11
 ,0 (~
2:17-cr-20775-TGB·- ..PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 12 0, 28 Pg ID 12

COUNT THREE

(18 U.S.C. § 666(a)- Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds)

D-1 DINO BUCCI

Paragraphs 1 through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-alleged and

incorporated by reference in Count Three as if fully set forth herein.

On or about November 5, 2014, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern

Division, defendant DINO BUCCI did corruptly solicit and demand for the benefit

of any person, and accept and agree to accept, $66,000 in cash from Christopher

Sorrentino, intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with business and

transactions of Macomb Township involving $5,000 or more.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a).

COUNT FOUR

(18 U.S.C. § 666(a)-Theft Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds)

D-1 DINOBUCCI

Paragraphs I through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-alleged and

incorporated by reference in Count Four as if fully set forth herein.

On or about November 3, 2014, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern

Division ' defendant DINO

.
BUCCI did embezzle, steal, and obtain by fraud, more

than $66,000, which was owned by and under the care, custody and control of

Macomb Township.

12
 0 /\
2:17-cr-20775-TGEi ..PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 13\.,, 28 Pg ID 13

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a).

COUNT FIVE

(18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)- Money Laundering)

D-1 DINO BUCCI

Paragraphs 1 through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-alleged and

incorporated by reference in Count Five as if fully set forth herein.

In or about November 2014, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern

Division, defendant DINO BUCCI, knowing that the property involved represented

the proceeds from some form of specified unlawful activity, as defined in Title 18,

United States Code, Section 1956(c)(7), that is, bribery and theft, felonies under Title

18, United States Code, Section 666, did himself and did aid and abet others,

including Christopher Sorrentino, in knowingly, intentionally, and unlawfully

conducting and causing to be conducted financial transactions in and affecting

interstate commerce which involved the proceeds of said unlawful activity, with the

intent to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of

the proceeds of said unlawful activity.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(l)(B)(i).

13
 (', .r-\
2:17-cr-20775-TG._ -\PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 14 1..lf 28 Pg ID 14

COUNT SIX

(18 U.S.C. § 666(a)-Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds)

D-1 DINO BUCCI

Paragraphs l through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-a1Ieged and

incorporated by reference in Count Six as if fully set forth herein.

In or about March 2015, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern

Division, defendant DINO BUCCI did corruptly solicit and demand for the benefit

of any person, and accept and agree to accept, at least $30,000 in cash from

Christopher Sorrentino, intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with

business and transactions of Macomb Township involving $5,000 or more.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a).

COUNT SEVEN

(18 U.S.C. § 666(a)- Theft Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds)

D-1 DINO BUCCI

Paragraphs l through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-alleged and

incorporated by reference in Count Seven as if fully set forth herein.

In or about March 2015, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern

Division, defendant DINO BUCCI did embezzle, steal, and obtain by fraud, more

than $30,000, which was owned by and under the care, custody and control of

Macomb Township.

14
 0 ~1

2:17-cr-20775-TGE:., .PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 15 LIi 28 Pg ID 15

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a).

COUNT EIGHT

(18 U.S.C. § 1341-Mail Fraud)

D-1 DINO BUCCI

1. Paragraphs 1 through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-

alleged and incorporated by reference in Count Eight as if fully set forth herein.

2. Defendant DINO BUCCI, knowingly and with intent to defraud,

devised and executed a scheme to defraud and to obtain money from Macomb

Township and its insurance company by means of false and fraudulent material

pretenses, representations, and promises.

THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD

3. In or about September 2014, water damage occurred to several ceiling

tiles in the Macomb Township Hall, located at 54111 Broughton Road, Macomb

Township, Michigan.· DINO BUCCI enlisted the assistance of Developer A to steal

money from the township. At the direction of DINO BUCCI, Developer A invoiced

Macomb Township $14,483.70 for the ceiling tile repairs, which were performed by

another company at the cost of only $2,400. After Developer A was overpaid for the

tile repairs by the township, and at the direction of DINO BUCCI, Developer A,

paid approximately $12,000 to BUCCI. Developer A paid DINO BUCCI in the

15
 01 ,~
2:17-cr-20775-TGEh---F'P Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 16 u• 28 Pg ID 16

form of cash, free plumbing work, and free kitchen cabinets installed in BUCCl's

home.

4. On about November 21, 2014, in the Eastern District of Michigan,

Southern Division, defendant DINO BUCCI, in executing the scheme to defraud,

knowingly caused checks and invoices to be delivered by mail.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341.

COUNT NINE

(18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)-Money Laundering)

D-1 DINO BUCCI

Paragraphs 1 through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-alleged and

incorporated by reference in Count Nine as if fully set forth herein.

From in or about November 2014, through in or about January 2015, in the

Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, defendant DINO BUCCI,

knowing that the property involved represented the proceeds from some form of

specified unlawful activity:, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section

1956(c)(7), that is, mail fraud, a felony under Title 18, United States Code, Section

1341, did himself and did aid and abet others in knowingly, intentionally, and

unlawfully conducting and causing to be conducted financial transactions in and

affecting interstate commerce which involved the proceeds of said unlawful activity,

16
 ~ i~
I '

2:17-cr-20775-TGB-,.f>p Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 17 u, 28 Pg ID 17

with the intent to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and

control of the proceeds of said unlawful activity.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(l)(B)(i).

COUNT TEN

(18 U.S.C. § 1951 - Extortion: Miscellaneous payments by Developer A)

D-1 DINO BUCCI

Paragraphs 1 through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-alleged and

incorporated by reference in Count Ten as if fully set forth herein.

In and between 2011 and 2016, in the Eastern District of Michigan, defendant

DINO BUCCI did knowingly and unlawfully obstruct, delay and affect interstate

commerce by extortion, in that he obtained payments from Developer A of over

$10,000 each calendar year, with the consent of Developer A, induced by wrongful

use of fear of economic harm and under color of official right.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951 .

COUNT ELEVEN

( 18 lJ. S. C. § 1951 - Attempted Extortion: Property Commission Scheme)

D-1 DINO BUCCI

Paragraphs 1 through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-alleged and

incorporated by reference in Count Eleven as if fully set forth herein.

17
 ,0 /\
2:17-cr-20775-TGb. \'pp Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 18 uf 28 Pg ID 18

In or about 2014, in the Eastern District of Michigan, defendant DINO

BUCCI did knowingly and unlawfully attempt to obstruct, delay and affect interstate

commerce through extortion, in that he attempted to obtain payments from

Developer A of approximately $50,000 in a property commission scheme involving

the sale of Macomb Township property, with the consent of Developer A, induced

by wrongful use of fear of economic harm and under color of official right.

All in violation ofTitle 18, United States Code, Section 1951.

COUNT TWELVE

(18 U.S.C. § 1951 --Extortion: Residential Development R)

D-1 DINO BUCCI

Paragraphs I through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-alleged and

incorporated by reference in Count Twelve as if fully set forth herein:

On or about May 8, 2015, in the Eastern District of Michigan, defendant

DINO BUCCI did knowingly and unlawfully obstruct, delay and affect interstate

commerce through extortion, in that he obtained a $3,500 cash payment from

Developer A related to Residential Development R, with the consent of Developer

A, induced by wrongful use of fear of economic harm and under color of official

right.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951.

18
 .0 I\
2:17-cr-20775-TG .... APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 1~ uf 28 Pg ID 19

COUNTS THIRTEEN THROUGH SIXTEEN,

(18 U.S.C. § 666(a)-Theft Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds)

D-1 DINO BUCCI

1. Paragraphs 1 through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-

aBeged and incorporated by reference in Counts Thirteen through Sixteen as if fully

set forth herein.

2. For each of the calendar years identified below, in the Eastern District

of Michigan, Southern Division, defendant DINO BUCCI did embezzle, steal; and

obtain by fraud, property valued at $5,000 or more each year, which was owned by

and under the care, custody, and control of Macomb County. In each calendar year

identified below, that is, 2013 through 2016, DINO BUCCI converted to his

personal use and stole the following property of Macomb County:

a. Snow plows, trucks, and labor of Macomb County Department of Public

Works employees working on County-paid time, whom DINO BUCCI

would make plow his and his relatives and friends' driveways on snowy

mornings, even before BUCCI permitted them to plow County owned

properties.

b. Those same employees' County-paid time and labor to perform routine

maintenance at DINO BUCCl's home, including yard clean-up, removing

pinecones, moving lawn furniture, and other tasks.

19
 r~ 0
2:17-cr-20775-TGL. ,PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 20 vf 28 Pg ID 20

c. A Macomb County Department of Public Works employee on County-paid

time who was tasked with driving DINO BUCCl's child to school each

morning, which was approximately a twenty-five minute drive each way.

d. Macomb County Department of Public Works employees who DINO

BUCCI made work on County-paid time to place campaign signs for

BUCCI and his favored political candidates, and remove campaign signs

ofBUCCI's rivals.

e. Macomb County Department of Public Works employees who were tasked

by DINO BUCCI to provide personal moving services on County-paid

time, including a trip to Ohio to move the belongings of the girlfriend of

BUCCI's associate and the movement of the personal belongings of

BUCCI's associate.

3. In conducting his theft from Macomb County, DINO BUCCI

threatened to punish Macomb County employees if they did not do these personal

errands and tasks for BUCCI. For example, DINO BUCCI threatened to send

employees home for weeks without pay, to take away the use of county vehicles, to

take away overtime pay opportunities, and to send employees to an undesirable

workstation with a twenty-four hour shift if they did not perform tasks to benefit

BUCCI personally or to benefit his political allies, unrelated to county work.

20

······ ·-·--····-··--------------------------------------
 (~ (~.·-·

2:17-cr-20775-TGL ·1·'\PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 21 ut 28 Pg ID 21

4. Each of the following constitutes a separate count of this Indictment:

Count Defendant Calendar Year

13 D-1 DINO BUCCI 2013

14 D-1 DINO BUCCI 2014

15 D-1 DINO BUCCI 2015

16 0-1 DINO BUCCI 2016

~

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a).

COUNT SEVENTEEN

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

Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds)

D-1 DINOBUCCI

THE CONSPIRACY

1. Paragraphs 1 through 14 of the General A1legations are hereby re-

alleged and incorporated by reference in Count Seventeen as if fully set forth herein.

2. From in or about 2012, through about November of 2016, in the Eastern

District of Michigan, Southern Division, defendant DINO BUCCI did unlawfully,

willfully, and knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree, with Developer

B, to corruptly solicit and demand for the benefit of any person, and accept and agree

to accept, over $10,000 for DINO BUCCI, with the intent to influence and reward

DINO BUCCI in connection with a business, transaction, or series of transactions

21
 0
2:17-cr-20775-TGL APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 22 of 28 Pg JD 22

of Macomb Township involving $5,000 or more, in violation of Title 18, United

States Code, Section 666(a).

MANNER AND MEANS BY WHICH THE

CONSPIRACY WAS CARRIED OUT

3. It was part of the conspiracy that DINO BUCCI would notify

Developer B whenever Macomb Township had property in the township that it could

sell to Developer B.

4. It was further part of the conspiracy that DINO BUCCI would use his

official position as a trustee with Macomb Township to ensure that Developer B

could purchase property owned by the township, including BUCCI voting in favor

of selling township property to Developer B.

5. It was further part of the conspiracy that Developer B would pay DINO

BUCCI a kickback of at least $10,000 after Developer B purchased property from

Macomb Township.

OVERT ACTS

In furtherance of the unlawful conspiracy, and to effect its objectives, the co-

conspirators committed the following overt acts, among others:

6. In or about 2012, DINO BUCCI told Developer B about some parcels

of land that Macomb Township had acquired through a tax foreclosure.

22
 ,f\ \.
2:17-cr-20775-TG.._ APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 2~ of 28 Pg ID 23

7. In or about 2012, DINO BUCCI used his. position as a trustee to

facilitate the sale of those parcels of land to Developer B, including voting in favor

of the sale of the parcels to Developer B.

8. In or about 2012, after Developer B purchased the parcels, Developer

B paid DINO BUCCI $10,000.

9. In or about 2016, DINO BUCCI told Developer B about 40 acres of

land that Macomb Township had acquired through a tax foreclosure.

10. In or about 2016, Developer B promised to pay at least a $25,000

kickback to DINO BUCCI if he were able to facilitate a sale of the 40 acres to

Developer B.

11. In or about 2016, Developer B gave a $20,000 deposit to Macomb

Township to purchase the 40 acres.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 666(a).

COUNT EIGHTEEN

( 18 U.S.C. § 666(a) - Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds)

D-1 DINO BUCCI

Paragraphs 1 through 14 of the General Allegations are hereby re-alleged and

incorporated by reference in Count Eighteen as if fully set forth herein.

On or about June 30, 2016, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern

Division, defendant DINO BUCCI did corruptly solicit and demand for the benefit

23
 r\ ,0
2:17-cr-20775-TGi.. .-\PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 24 uf 28 Pg ID 24

of any person, and accept and agree to accept, a check for $7,500 from Charles B.

Rizzo, intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with business and

transactions of Macomb Township involving $5,000 or more, namely, arranging for

Rizzo Environmental Services' trash bill for township residents to be placed on the

water bill of the township, and he was aided and abetted by Clifford Freitas.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a).

FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS

(18.S.C. § 98l(a)(l)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 246l(c)-Criminal Forfeiture)

1. The allegations contained in Counts One through Eighteen of this

Indictment are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of

alleging forfeitures pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C)

and Title 28, United States Code, Section 246l(c).

2. Upon conviction of a conspiracy to violate Title 18, United States Code,

Section 666(a), in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, as set forth

in Counts 1, 2, 17, and 18 of this Indictment, the defendant, DINO BUCCI~ shall

forfeit to the United States of America, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,

Section 98I(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 246I(c), any

property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from gross proceeds

traceable to said violations. The United States shall also seek the imposition of a

personal forfeiture money judgment against the defendant in an amount up to the

24
 ~ I'\,
2:17-cr-20775-TGl {PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 25 vi 28 Pg ID 25

value of gross proceeds obtained as a result of the defendant's participation in the

conspiracy to violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a).

3. Upon conviction of the offenses in violation of Title 18, United States

Code, Section 666(a) set forth in Counts 3, 4, 6, 7, 13-16, and 18 of this Indictment,

the defendant, DINO BUCCI, shall forfeit to the United States of America, pursuant

to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States

Code, Section 2461 (c), any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived

from gross proceeds traceable to the offenses. The United States shall also seek the

imposition of a personal forfeiture money judgment against the defendant in an

amount up to the value of gross proceeds obtained as a result of the defendant's

violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a).

4. Upon conviction of the offenses in violation of Title 18, United States

Code, Section 1341 set forth in Count 8 of this Indictment, the defendant, DINO

BUCCI, shall forfeit to the United States of America, pursuant to Title 18, United

States Code, Section 981 (a)(l )(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461 (c),

any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from gross proceeds

traceable to the offense. The United States shall also seek the imposition of a

personal forfeiture money judgment against the defendant in an amount up to the

value of gross proceeds obtained as a result of the defendant's violations of Title 18,

United States Code, Section 1341.

25
 f\ ;\
2:17-cr-20775-TG, ),PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 26 vf 28 Pg ID 26

5. Upon conviction of the offense in violation of Title 18, United States

Code, Section 1951 set forth in Counts 10, 11, and 12 of this Indictment, the

defendant, DINO BUCCI, shall forfeit to the United States of America, pursuant to

Title 18, United States Code, Section 98l(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code,

Section 2461 (c), any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from

gross proceeds traceable to the offenses. The United States shall also seek the

imposition of a personal forfeiture money judgment against the defendant in an

amount up to the value of gross proceeds obtained as a result of the defendant's

violations ofTitle 18, United States Code, Section 1951.

6. Upon conviction of the offense in violation of Title 18, United States

Code, Section 1956 set forth in Counts 5 and 9 of this Indictment, the defendant,

DINO BUCCI, shall forfeit to the United States of America, pursuant to Title 18,

United States Code, Section 98I(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section

2461 (c), any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from gross

proceeds traceable to the offenses. The United States shall also seek the imposition

of a personal forfeiture money judgment against the defendant in an amount up to

the value of gross proceeds obtained as a result of the defendant's violations of Title

18, United States Code, Section 1956.

7. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission

of the defendant:

26
 (\ ~'
2:17-cr-20775-TGL. {PP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 27 v, 28 Pg ID 27

a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;

c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

d. has been substantialJy diminished in value; or

e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided

without difficulty,

the United States of America shalJ be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property

pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by TitJe

28, United States Code, Section 246I(c).

AH pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981 (a)(l)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461 (c).

THIS rs A TRUE BILL

s/Grand Jury Foreperson

GRAND JURY FOREPERSON.

DANIELL. LEMISCH
Acting United States Attorney

s/R. Michael BuJJotta s/David A. Gardey

R. MICHAEL BULLOTTA DA YID A. GARDEY
Assistant United States Attorney Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Public Corruption Unit
Dated: November 15, 2017

27
 ~. /'--,
2:17-cr-20775-Tl ~APP Doc# 1 Filed 11/15/17 Pg 2b of 28 Pg ID 28

United States District Court Criminal Case Cover Sheet Case Number
Eastern District of Michigan

NOTE: Jt is the responsibility of the Assistant U.S. Attorney signing this form to complete it accurately in all respects.

Companion Case Number: 16-20732, 17-20363 & 17-20568

This may be a companion case based upon LCrR 57.10 (b)(4)': Judge Assigned: Robert H. Cleland

ig)Yes AUSA's Initials:

Case Title: USA v. D-1 DINO BUCCI

-----------------------
County where offense occurred : Macomb
--------------------
Check One: 181Felony D Misdemeanor 0Petty

__{_tndictment/__lnformation -- no prior complaint.

__lndictment/__lnformation -- based upon prior complaint [Case number:
__lndictment/_lnformation -- based upon LCrR 57.10 (d) [Complete Superseding section below].

Superseding to Case No: Judge:

-------------
0Corrects errors; no additional charges or defendants.
Involves, for plea purposes, different charges or adds counts.
B Embraces same subject matter but adds the additional defendants or charges below:

Defendant name Charges Prior Complaint (if applicable}

Please take notice that the below listed Assistant United States Attorney is the attorney of record for
the above captioned case.

November 15, 2017

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

1 Companion cases are matters in which it appears that (1) substantially similar evidence will be offered at trial, or (2) the same
or related parties are present, and the cases arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Cases may be companion cases
even though one of them may have already been te~minated. 5/16
(
I
'\

EXHIBIT B
 /'\
4/30/2018 Macomb Co. - Election Results - Macomb Twp 1, ~~,ee

Macomb Twp Trustee

Four 4-year terms
Official results, updated November 22, 3:02 PM

Race List I Race Summary I Race Details I Race Details (Printer FriendlY.).

35 of 35 (100.0%) precincts reporting*

Nancy J. Nevers REP 24,418 21.8% ®al

Timothy F. Bussineau REP 24,372 21.7% •llm

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

*Please Note: A precinct will not display in the percent of precincts reporting until
both election day and AV (absentee) results are recorded for that precinct.

1/1
http://clerk.macombgov.org/sites/default/files/content/government/clerk/electionresults/2016/November16/233.html