of 459
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
1/458
CONTENTS Page
SUMMARY 2
3
SELECTED EXHIBTS
Exhibit 1 DOJ Guidance Manual Appendix III-Effect of Boyle vs. US on RICO 23
Exhibit A Affidavit of Ronald J. Bonfilio Documents Examiner:36
Evidentiary Attachments to Exhibit AExhibit A,Attachment 1, Non Collusion Affidavits 42
Exhibit A, Attachment 2, Bid Bonds
69Exhibit A Attachment 3 Public Documents Used to Create Exhibit F 86
Exhibit DR 1Civil Construction, LLC 2 year report Principals 104
Exhibit F, Depiction In Chart Form of RICO Activities. Created by Mr. Bonfilio,rom Public In ormationDocuments Attachment 3, .
107
Exhibit G. Two Recent Contracts wherein CNA Inc was low Bidder109
Exhibit J Table I Factors Establishing RICO Enterprise 114
Exhibit K Table II-Criminal Violations by RICO enterprise 121
Exhibit L Table III Gallardo Sworn Statements-Excerpts 129
Exhibit O Defendant's Affiliation Matrix 133
Exhibit P-1 Police Reports: Mercedes Break in and Threat at DuPont Circle 134
Exhibit S-1 Fort Myer Dept. of Small and Local Business Application Excerpts 139
Exhibit S-2 Anchor Dept. of Small and Local Business Application Excerpts 154
Exhibit S-3 Capital Paving, Dept. of Small and Local Business Application Excerpts 166
Exhibit V- 1 Ball Joint Damage 178
Exhibit V-2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 2003Mercedes Benz C230 Report from "Safercar" 185
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
2/458
PART 3
COMPLAINTS FILED BY CHEEKS V. FORT MYER ET AL Associates
John C. Cheeks, pro se v Fort Myer Construction Company et al 1:09-cv-02163Judge Kollar-Kotelly, Colleen, 11/17/2009. Antitrust
194
CNA Corporations v Fort Myer Construction Company et alJudge Kollar-Kotelly, Colleen, 318
CNA Corporations v Fort Myer Construction Company et al DC Superior CourtMarch 28, 2014 CA 001898 transferred to US District Court Judge Lamberth DC1:14-cv-00914-RCL 9/28/15
ToAdd
Proposed Third Amended Complaint 531
OTHER RELATED COMPLAINTS FILED BY JOHN CHEEKS
John C. Cheeks v. DC Board of Elections - Complaint Verified Petition for a
Temporary Restraining Order . Aug 25, 2014 Case 14- 0005272 Reserved
John Cheeks v. Robert Turner - Complaint for Malicious Interference Aug 26, 2014Case 14-0005289
Reserved
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS AND DOCUMENTS
Unexplained Deaths
Leroy Cook Police Report 577
Leroy Cook WJLA Report and Contact Persons 579
Death Similar to Cook and "Old Mac" Deaths 581
Bribery Doc 103-15 Exhibit Docket Gregorio-Sentencing 582
Associate Companies
Associated Companies: Tessa tobe Added 592
CNA Financial Corporation 601
Rodriguez- Shrensky Donations and Associates. 1
Law Enforcement Associations
FBI Association - FBI Directors Community Leadership Award 2008 602
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
3/458
FBI Citizens Academy Alumni Form 990s Fort Myer Construction CompanyCharitable Foundations and Washington DC Police Foundation
604
Donations to Religious Organizations - Shrensky Foundation 606
Political Donations and Influence
Defendants Political Contributions from Cheeks of North America Complaint Exhibit 607
Anita Bonds, DC Council Member
AnitaBonds Listed as Fort Myer Employee 627
Associate Companies
Associated Companies: Tessa tobe Added 592
Associated Companies CNA Financial Corp 601
Associate Companies
Associated Companies: Tessa tobe Added 592
Associated Companies CNA Financial Corp 601
Bonds: DC Candidate focuses on changing demographics in debatePage 630 Said she would step down as a Fort Myer Construction Executive-Article
628
Anita Bonds pulls in heavy corporate donations -Washington Post Article 632
Same as the Old Boss? Loose Lips Article, City Paper 635
Meet an At-Large DC Council Candidate Anita Bonds Washington Post Article byMike DeBonis
637
News Articles
Fort Myer Bribery - Common Denominator ArticleDoc 103-12 Exhibit Bribery Documents
640
Fort Myer Construction Will Pay $900k To Settle DiscriminationAnd Harassment Case Involving 371 Women And Minorities.- US Department of Labor News Release
642
Fort Myer's Friends Washington Post Article and Doc 103-14 Exhibit Bribery andDebarment 2003
646
Firing of Stephen Amos Loose Lips Article 647
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
4/458194
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
5/458195
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
6/458196
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
7/458197
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
8/458198
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
9/458199
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
10/458200
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
11/458201
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
12/458202
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
13/458203
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
14/458204
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
15/458205
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
16/458206
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
17/458207
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
18/458208
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
19/458209
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
20/458210
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
21/458
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
22/458212
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
23/458213
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
24/458214
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
25/458215
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
26/458216
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
27/458
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
28/458218
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
29/458219
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
30/458220
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
31/458221
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
32/458222
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
33/458223
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
34/458224
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
35/458225
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
36/458226
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
37/458227
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
38/458228
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
39/458229
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
40/458230
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
41/458231
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
42/458232
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
43/458233
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
44/458234
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
45/458235
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
46/458236
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
47/458237
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
48/458238
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
49/458239
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
50/458240
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
51/458241
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
52/458242
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
53/458243
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
54/458244
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
55/458245
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
56/458246
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
57/458247
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
58/458248
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
59/458249
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
60/458250
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
61/458251
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
62/458252
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
63/458253
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
64/458254
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
65/458255
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
66/458256
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
67/458257
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
68/458258
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
69/458259
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
70/458260
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
71/458261
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
72/458262
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
73/458263
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
74/458264
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
75/458265
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
76/458266
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
77/458267
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
78/458268
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
79/458269
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
80/458270
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
81/458271
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
82/458272
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
83/458273
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
84/458274
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
85/458275
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
86/458276
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
87/458277
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
88/458278
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
89/458279
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
90/458280
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
91/458281
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
92/458282
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
93/458283
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
94/458284
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
95/458285
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
96/458286
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
97/458287
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
98/458288
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
99/458289
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
100/458290
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
101/458291
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
102/458292
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
103/458293
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
104/458294
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
105/458295
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
106/458296
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
107/458297
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
108/458298
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
109/458299
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
110/458300
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
111/458301
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
112/458302
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
113/458303
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
114/458304
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
115/458305
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
116/458306
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
117/458307
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
118/458308
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
119/458309
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
120/458310
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
121/458311
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
122/458312
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
123/458313
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
124/458314
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
125/458315
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
126/458316
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
127/458317
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
128/458
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 1 of 213
318
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
129/458
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
130/458
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 3 of 213
320
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
131/458
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 4 of 213
321
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
132/458
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 5 of 213
322
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
133/458
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 6 of 213
323
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
134/458
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 7 of 213
324
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
135/458
1
TABLE OF CONTENTSI. NATURE OF THIS CASE ....................................................................................................................1
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE...........................................................................................................1
III. PARTIES ............................................................................................................................................. 1
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................................3
V.IMMEDIATE INJUCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE ......................................................................................................................19
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF-FEDERAL CLAIMS UNDER TITLE 15 (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).... 20
VII. ALLOCATION OF DAMAGE RELIEF REQUESTED............................................................. 20
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LAW,
CONSPIRACY, FRAUD AND COMMON LAW CLAIMS.183................................................ 20
IX. SUMMARY OF DAMAGES: DEFENDANTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE.... 20
X. VERIFICATION BY PLAINTIFF ................20
XI. REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JUDGE ............21
XII. ATTACHMENT I LETTER FROM DCDOT CONTRACT AWARDED TO FORT MYER
CONSTRUCTION CORP, DCKA-2009-C-0025...........................................................................21
First Count: Violation of Section 1 of The Sherman Anti-Trust Act Affiliated Companies BiddingFederally Funded Infrastructure Contracts .................................................................................................. 3
Second Count:Violation of Sherman Anti - Trust Act By A Surety Company; Endorsementand Registrar Issuance of Surety Bid Bond Instrument(s) for Affiliated Defendant Customers orClients ......4
Third Count:Bid-Rigging; Conspiracy of Restraint of Trade, Section 1 of The ShermanAnti - Trust Act .......................................................................................................................................5
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 8 of 213
325
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
136/458
2
Fourth Count: Price Fixing ......6
Fifth Count: Monopoly by Defendant Companies................................ 6
Sixth Count: Coercive Monopoly; Owners, Directors, Officers of Companies, Elected PublicOfficials and Appointed Employees by Public Officials.................................................7
Seventh Count:: Contract Steering ..8
Eighth Count: Violation of Non-Collusion Affidavit for District of Columbia Water and SewerAuthority and District of Columbia, Department of Transportation of IFB Solicitations...9
Ninth Count:. Violation of DC Code 28- 4502; Engaging in a Bid-Rigging Conspiracy by Directors,Owners and Officers ...9
Tenth Count: Breached Procurement Regulations . 10
Eleventh Count:Common Law Fraud ........................................................ 11
Twelfth Count: Oversight Failure, Gross Negligence and Fraud of Governance Boards, CorporateBoards and the District of Columbia Government ........16
Thirteenth Count:Tortious Interference with Business Relationships; Plaintiffs Debtors. .................18
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 9 of 213
326
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
137/458
3
COMPLAINT
NOTE TO COURT
1. This claim is related to Civil Action Case No.. 1:09-cv-02163 CKK, which had many of the same
Defendants that committed the same violations.
The District Court, incident to the prior dismissal, suggested that in re-filing this case the plaintiff
include in the opening paragraphs, a summary of the several counts with the magnitude of damages
stated separately for each count. The following table attempt to follow the Courts request.
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 10 of 213
327
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
138/458
4
Table 1 RELIEF AMOUNT BY COUNTS October 13, 2010
1First Count: Violation of Section 1 of The Sherman Anti-Trust ActAffiliated Companies Bidding Federally Funded Infrastructure Contracts
$ 582,175,180.80
2
Second Count: Violation of Sherman Anti - Trust Act A By SuretyCompany; Endorsement and Registrar Issuance of Surety Bid BondInstrument(s) for Affiliated Defendant Customers or Clients
$ 91,900,488.70
3Third Count: Bid-Rigging; Conspiracy of Restraint of Trade, Section 1 ofThe Sherman Anti - Trust Act
$ 78,248,445.01
4 Fourth Count: Price Fixing $ 25,424,566.02
5 Fifth Count: Monopoly by Defendant Companies$ 15,524,671.48
6
Sixth Count: Coercive Monopoly; Owners, Directors, Officers ofCompanies, Elected Public Officials and Appointed Employees by PublicOfficials
$76,582,273.49
7 Seventh Count: Contract Steering. $ 136,427,637.94
8
Eighth Count: Violation of Non-Collusion Affidavit for District ofColumbia Water and Sewer Authority and District of Columbia, Departmentof Transportation of IFB Solicitations.
$ 255,652,771.79
9Ninth Count: Violation of DC Code 28- 4502; Engaging in a Bid-RiggingConspiracy by Directors, Owners and Officers Constitutes Interference.
$194,658,393.60
10 Tenth Count Breached Procurement Regulations $ 21,425,428.00
11 Eleventh Count: Common Law Fraud$346,198,580.68
12
Twelfth Count: Oversight Failure, Gross Negligence And Fraud ofGovernance Boards, Corporate Boards and The District of ColumbiaGovernment
$ 479,009,724.92
13Thirteenth Count: Tortious Interference with Business Relationships;Plaintiffs Debtors
$ 9,132,084.00
Relief Prayed For Total$2,312,360,246.4
311 Eleventh Count Punitive Damages $250,000,000.00 were included above
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 11 of 213
328
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
139/458
5
I. NATURE OF THIS CASE
2. This is an action by a private corporation against four defendant contractors and their surety Company,
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 15, for violations of restraint of trade, monopoly, bid rigging and fraud
contained in 15 U.S.C. 1 through 35. The violations are contained in the Clayton Anti-trust Act,
and various provisions of District of Columbia code and common law.
3. Defendant(s) unlawful actions have undermined at random, jointly or separately fair business
principles and ethics, which has a direct impact on procurement regulations in the District of Columbia
Government for all independent companies to compete and participate for infrastructure IFB
solicitations without the threat or presence of common law fraud by Defendants
4. Government officials have issued contracts, from $13 to $68 million, on a single IFB DCKA-2009-B-
0025, by fraudulently by-passing statutory procedures, approvals, and oversight (See Exhibit F.7.3 and
Attachment I and Count Eleven, page 119, paragraph 363).
5. The caption of this case is presented in an unusual format with the four principal defendant
corporations and their surety, listed as five principal defendants to the federal claims. In the caption of
this case, each contracting corporation is listed is followed by each affiliated person for that respective
corporations.
6. Each such person listed is alleged to have performed some or part of the actions resulting in bid-rigging
and the obtaining of contracts under circumstances prohibited by 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq. The listings of
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 12 of 213
329
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
140/458
6
those corporations and the affiliated persons in the caption are hereby incorporated into this statement
of facts as if fully set forth herein.
7. Plaintiff submits that the presentation of the affiliation and interlocking nature of these four principal
bidders and their affiliates establishes violation of 15 U.S.C. 19 (prohibition against interlocking
directorates) with respect to the five (5) contracts alleged to be unlawful in this case. Put simply, the
collusion and the fraud inherent in the bid rigging on these five contracts is patent on the face of the
facts.
8. When the bidding parties in the purportedly competitive contracts are put side by side with the listing
above, it is clear that the biddings were not competitive and were in fact controlled by the three or four
colluding bidders. Details follow:
9. The four corporations who are alleged to be principal conspiring corporations are: Defendant Fort
Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation, Defendant Civil
Construction Corporation, and Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc.
10. Western Surety Company a Subsidiary underwriting Company of CNA Surety (Western). Paul T.
Bruflat, Senior Vice President is also a principal defendant in that the 5 contracts which are the 5
immediate subjects of the complaint could not have been executed and awarded to the defendants
without the unlawful actions committed by Western.
11. Western furnished the Bid Bond for each of the 5 contracts for all of the four colluding co-defendant
construction corporations herein. Western has admitted it knew that the four conspiring corporations
were affiliated, a patent violation of 15 U.S.C. sec 1.
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 13 of 213
330
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
141/458
7
12. Therefore, there are five (5) principal defendants in this action, with many colluding governmental
entities and persons. Those persons are included in the caption of this case under the particular entity,
board or committed with which they are affiliated for the convenience of the Court.
13. 15 U.S.C. 35 and 36 prohibit any recovery of damages from any local government or official or
employee thereof acting in an official capacity. Plaintiff alleges that no such employee who
conspired with anyone of the 5 principal defendants, or any official thereof to violate 15 U.S.C. could
possibly have been acting except in a non-governmental capacity when he allowed the bid rigging to
occur. His/her official duty was to prohibit such actions, not to facilitate unlawful acts.
14. Moreover, the District of Columbia is not a state, and is not within the definition of a local
government, therefore this exception to the power of this court to enforce the law, plaintiffs submits,
does not exist.
15. Similarly, the governmental entities and departments named as defendant persons are presented for
purposes of clarity again followed by the persons who allegedly facilitated the frauds, bid-rigging, and
contract acquisitions in violation of 15 U.S.C. sec. 1. The reader should note that the duplication of
names appearing in the caption of this case is intentionally presented for purposes of clarity.
16. Plaintiff Cheeks of North America, Inc.s (CNA) complaint consists of various allegations against
defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation, three more affiliated corporations, and their surety.
The other defendants, both corporate and individual, are listed in the caption of this case (which are
hereby incorporated by this reference). Each of the defendants either violated and/or criminally
undermined Section 1 of the Sherman Anti Trust Act and Clayton Act of 1914 or facilitated the bid-
rigging and monopolistic actions complained of herein (15 U.S.C. sec 1).
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 14 of 213
331
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
142/458
8
17. CNA and/or its delegate seek to act as a private Attorney General to the extent the court deems such
action appropriate in this case. Plaintiff submits that extraordinary relief is appropriate in the
cancellation of five(5) contracts as unlawful and re-awarding those contracts to CNA in light of the
obvious breakdown in the District of Columbia bidding process.
18. CNA stands ready to perform whatever part the Court deems necessary in mitigation of the upset and
damages, and reestablishing the services required by the five unlawful contracts.
19. The defendant contractors established interlocking corporate directorships, officers and employees
which gave the appearance of multiple competitive bidders on contracts. In fact however, all contract
bids were in fact essentially one unified combination designed to bring about a competitive edge
resulting in restraint of trade for the benefit of the named defendants.
20. The actions complained of herein facilitated bid rigging, common law fraud, and a resulting
monopolized District of Columbia Government process for infra-structure bidding and contracting.
The named agencies and affiliated persons of DC and WASA including the named employees/officers
and named members of the Board of Directors and committee members facilitated the actions of the
corporate contracts by steering contracts, being negligent in governance and agency oversight, while
failing utterly to perform their duties as Government and fiduciary officials.
21. The defendants used financial surety instruments all issued by the same surety company (Western) to
bid on solicited contracts, to violate Non Collusion Affidavit(s), and to commit fraud through the
securing of US government funded infrastructure American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 15 of 213
332
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
143/458
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
144/458
10
sued in their personal capacities. They are alleged to be participants in the conspiracy, aiding and
abetting the unlawful acts alleged herein. The employees of defendant corporations identified herein
are contracting parties who are named in their personal capacity as actual participants in the conspiracy
in restraint of trade.
27. District of Columbia Government is being sued as a responsible party for the acts of a number of its
own employees and elected officials for violation of federal laws. Plaintiff CNA and its owner, John
C. Cheeks (Cheeks), are the plaintiffs who were and are currently being injured by the unlawful acts
complained of herein. Five (5) contracts for which Plaintiff CNA was the low bidder were subject to
bid-rigging using interlocking directorates through continuing conspiracies between co-bidders. CNA
is totally owned by its stockholder Cheeks and was the original successful low bidder on a number of
the contracts described herein after. For those contracts, the awards were withdrawn by the co-
conspirators through the unlawful acts of the DC contracting officials and of D.C. WASA. a private
non-governmental corporation.
28. At all times relevant hereto, responsible oversight Defendant officials/employees and elected
Defendant officials of DC with ultimate oversight authority, were aware or should have been aware of
the on-going conspiracy to redirect the bids to award contracts. On information and belief they did this
in exchange for various favors and monetary benefits to themselves or co-conspirators.
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 17 of 213
334
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
145/458
11
29. On information and belief, the violations described herein apply to infrastructure contracts.
Infrastructure contracting is defined as companies supplying services relating to (below ground
utilities) water, sewer, roads (non-highways or highways), bridges (non-highways or highways),, above
ground utilities, traffic control, sidewalks, and storm water management systems . The total budgetary
contracts in 2009 for DC were estimated at $400 million dollars. ARRA issued infrastructure funding
to the District of Columbia. for fiscal year 2010.
30. The five (5) contracts were wrongfully awarded to the co-conspirators. Those contracts are continuing
with harm to the public because of overpricing and enrichment of the co-conspirators. In addition to
the damages requested herein, which approximates $360 million, plaintiff requests immediate
injunctive relief voiding the (5) contracts and awarding those contracts from this time forward to the
plaintiff CNA as the rightful recipient of award of the contracts.
31. Also, it appears that the oversight function and management of these on-going contracts can notbe
continued with the District of Columbias existing contract managers who were party to the original
unlawful acts. That course of action would merely continue and increase the magnitude of the
unlawful acts.
32. The court is requested to consider assignment of a special master or other managing agency subject to
the control of this court as a substitute for the District of Columbias responsibility for administration
of these contracts.
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 18 of 213
335
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
146/458
12
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
33. This Court has jurisdiction to hear the merits of Plaintiffs claims because this action arises under the
Sherman Antitrust Act 15 U.S.C 1 et seq., and jurisdiction over the related state law claims, which
arise out of the same body of facts, is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1367 and the principles of supplemental
jurisdiction. 15 U.S.C. 26 grants the Court the power to award injunctive relief with respect to private
defendants (as here). Federal claims (violations of 15 U.S.C.) grant jurisdiction to provide redress over
those federal violations under 28 U.S.C. 1331.
34. The amount of this controversy far exceeds the jurisdictional requirement for a lawsuit herein ($75,000
minimum).
35. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1391, and 15 U.S.C 4. All references in
this Complaint to specific statutes, codes and regulations include any successors to those statutes codes,
and regulations.
36. All of the unlawful acts occurred in the District of Columbia. Plaintiff is located in the District of
Columbia.
III. PARTIES
37. Plaintiff Cheeks of North America, Inc. (aka CNA) from herein, during the time in question, August
20,2008 to September 25, 2009, is a District of Columbia corporation (See Exhibit
C.1.1) with its principal office located at Suite 350, 1425 K Street NW. Washington D.C. 20005,
CNA is a business engaged primarily in specialized purchasing, contacting, infrastructure contractor,
Strategic business planning or development specialists and consultant of manufacturing facilities
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 19 of 213
336
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
147/458
13
(building or infrastructure materials)for economic challenged countries outside the United States.. John
C. Cheeks is the founder and President of the corporation.
38. Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation, during August 20, 2008 to September25, 2009
with Defendant (s)Francisco Rodrigues Neto (Vice President), Jose Rodrigues (President, Owner),
Lewis Shrensky (Treasurer, Secretary and Board of Directors). Defendant Fort Myer Construction
Corporation is a Commonwealth of Virginia corporation registered to conduct business in the District
of Columbia as a foreign corporation and has 12 Affirmative Action points as a District of Columbia
Certified Business Enterprises(CBE) (formerly Local, Small and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
(LSDBE), or Department of Small and Local Business Development. to compete for District of
Columbia Government and non- District of Columbia Government contracts has a place of business at
2237 33rd Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20018 (See Exhibit C.2.1.).
39. Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation has or had a management level or standard office
employee, George Batista, who participates in contractual or field/assembly estimating and/or pricing
of cost to the public customers or private customers for infrastructure services during time in question:
August 20,2008 thru September 25, 2009.
40. During this time in question, Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation (FMCC) was engaged
in infrastructure construction (See Exhibits D.9,and D.10). Infrastructure is defined as companies
supplying services relating to water, sewer, roads, bridges, traffic control, sidewalks, and other above
or below round utilities..
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 20 of 213
337
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
148/458
14
41. Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation, during August 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009, Jose
Rodrigues (Board of Directors), Defendant Francisco Rodrigues (Board of Directors). Defendant
Cristina R. Gregorio, (Board of Directors), Defendant Florentino Gregorio, (aka Flortino Gregorio)
President, Secretary and Board of Directors).
42. Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation is a District of Columbia corporation with 12 Affirmative
Action points as a District of Columbia Certified Business Enterprises(CBE) (formerly Local, Small
and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (LSDBE). to compete for District of Columbia Government
and non- District of Columbia Government contracts with its principal place of business at 2254 25th
Place, N.E, Washington, D.C.. During the time period in question, Defendant Anchor (Anchor)
Construction Corporation was engaged in general horizontal construction and contracting, including,
but not limited to, residential construction, commercial construction and public works projects(See
Exhibits C.3.1).
43. Defendant Civil Construction, L.L.C.during August 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009; employed
Lewis Shrensky, (Board of Directors), Jose Rodriguez (Board of Directors).
44. Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. is a Maryland corporation licensed to conduct business in the
District of Columbia as a foreign corporation, and has 12 Affirmative Action points as a District of
Columbia Certified Business Enterprises(CBE) (formerly Local, Small and Disadvantaged Business
Enterprises (LSDBE) or Department of Small and Local Business Development. It purportedly
competes for District of Columbia Government and WASA contracts. It has a place of business at
2413 Schuster Drive, Cheverly, MD 20781. During this time in question, Defendant Civil Construction
L.L.C. (Civil) was engaged in the construction business (See Exhibit C.4.1).
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 21 of 213
338
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
149/458
15
45. Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc.(Capital Paving of D.C. Inc), during August 20, 2008to
September 25, 2009, Defendant Francisco R. Neto, (President, Treasurer and Board of Directors).
Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc., (See Exhibit C.5.1)is a District of Columbia corporation, and has 12
Affirmative Action points as a District of Columbia Certified Business Enterprises(CBE) (formerly
Local, Small and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (LSDBE) or Department of Small and Local
Business Development. to compete for District of Columbia Government and non- District of
Columbia Government contracts with its principal place of business at 2211 Channing Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20018. During the time period in question, Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc., (Capitol)
was engaged in general and specialty construction contract business (See Exhibit C.5.4 and C.5.3.
46. Defendant A&M Concrete Corp. during September 25, 2009 until December 5, 2009 was a
Commonwealth of Virginia corporation and contractor bidding on District of Columbia Government
infrastructure, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009(ARRA) funded projects (IFB
DCKA-2009-B-0193 by the United States Government..
47. Defendant Joe Alvesis the Executive Vice President (See Exhibit M .7.1) of A&M Concrete Corp.(A
and M) located at 43760 Trade Center Pl. , Suite #160,Dulles, VA 20166.
48. Defendant Alexandra Batistais the Administrative Assistant (See Exhibit M .7.1 ) of A & M
Concrete Corporation..
49. Defendant Western Surety Company(Western), is a commercial fidelity surety bond company.
50. Defendant Paul T. Bruflat, is a Senior Vice President of Western. (See Exhibit J.3). Western is
located at 101 South Phillips Avenue , Sioux Falls, SD 57104, (See Exhibit J.4), during August 20,
2008 to June 20, 2009 (See Exhibit J.3).
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 22 of 213
339
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
150/458
16
51. Defendant District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority(DCWASA) and its General Counsel,
during the period August 20, 2008 through March 25, 2009, had its principal place of business at 5000
Overlook Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20032.
52. Defendant District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, Procurement Department;
(hereinafter referred to as DCWASA-PD), during the period August 20, 2008 through March 25,
2009, was part of an non-government independent private utilities company funded by US Government
agencies and the government of the District of Columbia with its principal place of business located at
5000 Overlook Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20032.
53. During the time period in question D.C.WASA-PD was engaged in managing water and sewage
projects for residential, commercial, government and institutional et al use in the District of Columbia.
Key employees, current or past of DCWASA were or are: Jerry Johnson, former General Manager, and
Carlo Enciso, Senior Construction, Contract Administrator (See Exhibit F.1.9).
54. Current or past Chairman, William M. Walkerand Neil Albert, Member of the Board of Directors of
the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (hereinafter referred to as DCWASA-BOD), a
non-governmental utility company, are sued in their individual capacity for unlawful actions for the
period of August 20, 2008 through March 25, 2009.
55. DCWASA-BODis an independent private utility company funded by US Government agencies and
the government of the District of Columbia with its principal place of business located at 5000
Overlook Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20032. During the time period in question, DCWASA-BOD
was engaged in voting on water and sewage projects for residential, commercial, government and
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 23 of 213
340
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
151/458
17
institutional and other use in the District of Columbia, These actions are alleged to be contrary to the
bylaws of DCWASA-BOD, 34-2202.05(See Exhibits F.1.2 and G.1.3)
56. Defendant District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, Retail Services Committee,
(hereinafter referred to as DCWASA-RSC), a private non-governmental utility company, (See
Exhibit G.3.8) during the period August 20, 2008 through March 25, 2009 were part of an independent
private utility company funded by US Government agencies and the government of the District of
Columbia with its principal place of business located at 5000 Overlook Avenue, SW, Washington,
D.C. 20032. During the time period in question, DCWASA-RSC was engaged in final voting of water
and sewage projects for residential, commercial, government and institutional et al use in the District of
Columbia. Article V 5.01, (viii) of the bylaws of DCWASA. The actions of the Retail Services
Committee violated 15 U.S.C. sec. 1. The (current or past) members responsible for these violations
are: Joseph Cotruvo, Chairmen (See Exhibits G.1.1,G.1.3, G.1.5, G.2.1, G.3.1, and G.3.2). These
persons are sued in their individual capacity.
57. DCWASA-PD, DCWASA-BOD and DCWASA-RSC, (collectively hereinafter referred to as
DCWASA, a non-governmental utility company), during the period August 20, 2008 through March
25, 2009, was an independent private utility company funded by US Government agencies and the
government of the District of Columbia with its principal place of business located at 5000 Overlook
Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20032. During the time period in question, DCWASA was engaged in
managing water and sewage projects for the District of Columbia (See Exhibits F.2.1 and E.1.7).
58. Defendant District of Columbia, Department of Public Works, Office of Contracting and
Procurement, 2000 14thSt. NW, Sixth floor, Washington, D.C. 2009, a District of Columbia
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 24 of 213
341
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
152/458
18
government agency, during the period December 20, 2008 through December 30, 2008, James
Roberts, Contracting Officer (See Exhibit H.5.1).
59. Defendant Government of the District of Columbia, Department of Transportation, during
October 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009; Jerry M. Carter, Contracting Officer (See Exhibit D.20.1);
Gabe Klein, District Department of Transportation Director (See Exhibit F.7.1) (Time in Question:
January 29,2009 through June 22, 2009 ; and David P. Gragan, Chief Procurement Officer (See
Exhibit F.7).
60. Defendant District of Columbia Council Committee on Public Works and Transportation (See
Exhibit F.4.1), 1350 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 116, Washington D.C. 2004, during, Oct 20, 2008 to
September 25, 2009.
61. Defendant Jim Graham, Chairperson(Ward 1 Council Member) (See Exhibit F.5.1)District of
Columbia Council Committee on Public Works and Transportation; 1350 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite
116, Washington D.C. 2004, during, Oct 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009
62. Defendant Ted G. Loza, Chief of Staff for Jim Graham, District of Columbia Council Member of
Ward 1 and Chairperson of District of Columbia Council, Committee on Public Works and
Transportation, during time in question, October 20,2008 to September 24,2009, at 1350 Pennsylvania
Ave NW, Suite 116, Washington D.C. 20004.
63. Defendant Steven Hernndez, (Legislative and Budget Director), District of Columbia Council of
Public Works and Transportation 350 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 116, Washington D.C. 2004,
during, Oct 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009.
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 25 of 213
342
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
153/458
19
64. Defendant, The Executive Office of the Mayor, (See Exhibits F.8.28, F.8.29)1350 Pennsylvania Ave
NW, Suite 316, Washington, D.C. 20004, during tine in question August 20, 2008 through October 7,
2009, is the executive office and governance authority of the District of Columbia.
65. Defendant Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, (D) (See Exhibits F.8.19,F.8.20, F.8.21 and F.8.115)of 1350
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 316, Washington, D.C. 20004, during time in question August 20, 2008
through October 7, 2009. The Mayor, Adrian M. Fenty has the executive authority and oversight
approval of all District of Columbia agencies, which are funded by the U.S. Government (See Exhibit
F.8.116).
66. Defendant District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General, 441 4th Street, NW, Suite 1145S,
Washington, DC 20001 during time in question August 20, 2008 through October 7, 2009. The Office
of Attorney General has the authority for oversight and enforcement laws of the District of Columbia
agencies and citizens.
67. Defendant District of Columbia ,Peter Nickles, Attorney General of the District of Columbia , 441
4th Street, NW, Suite 1145S, Washington, DC 20001 during time in question August 20, 2008 through
October 7, 2009. The Office of Attorney General has the authority for oversight and enforcement laws
of the District of Columbia
68. Upon information and belief at all times herein relevant, Defendant Jose Rodriguez (aka Jose
Rodrigues) was Director of Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation during the time period in
question. Upon information and belief Jose Rodriguez (aka Jose Rodrigues)was the principal owner,
president, and director of FMCC during the time period in question. Upon information and belief Jose
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 26 of 213
343
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
154/458
20
Rodriguez was a Principal Manager of Defendant Civil Construction, L. L. C. during the time period in
question.
69. Upon information and belief at all times herein relevant, Defendant Florentino Gregorio was President
and a member of the Board of Directors of Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation during the
time period in question.
70. Upon information and belief at all times herein relevant, Defendant Cristina R. Gregorio was a member
of the Board of Directors of Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation during the time period in
question.
71. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lewis Shrensky during the time period in question during,
August 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009 was the Secretary, Treasurer, Director, and Registered Agent
of FMCC during the time period in question. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lewis Shrensky
was the Principal Manager, Owner or Acting Director of Defendant Civil Construction, L.L. C during
the time period in question (See Exhibit C.4.10).
72. Upon information and belief, Defendant Executive Office of the Mayor, also Defendant, Adrian M.
Fenty, Mayor of the District of Columbia (Dem.) during the time period in question, August 20, 2008
through September 25, 2009.
73. Upon information and belief, Defendant Francisco Rodriquez Neto during the time period in question,
August 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009, was the Vice President and a Director of FMCC which
became Civil Construction L.L.C. (See Exhibit C.4.3) during the time period in question.
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 27 of 213
344
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
155/458
21
74. Upon information and belief, Defendant Francisco Rodriquez Neto (aka Francisco Rodrigues Neto,)
was a Director of Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation during the time period in question,
August 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009. Upon information and belief, Defendant Francisco Rodriquez
Neto was the President, Treasurer and a Director of Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc. Inc. during the time
period in question.
75. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jerry N. Johnson (Past Employee) was the General Manager
for DCWASA (See Exhibits G.1.3, G.1.8 and G.3.8), a non-government independent utility company,
during the time period in question, August 20, 2008 to June 20, 2009.
76. Defendant Western Surety, Co./CNA, Surety Claims (Western) at 101 South Phillips Avenue, Sioux
Falls, SD 57104, during the time period in question: August 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009 was the
underwriter for the defendants bid bonds: Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Anchor Construction
Corporation and Civil Construction L.L.C..
77. Upon information and belief Defendant William M. Walker, of the Defendant (s) District of Columbia
Water and Sewer Authority Chairman of the Board of Directors of DCWASA-BOD (See Exhibits
G.3.1, G.3.4 and B.3.6), a non-government independent utility company, and member of the Retail
Services Committee during the time period in question: August 20, 2008 to June 20, 2009 and was the
person ultimately responsible for DCWASAs part of the unlawful actions.
78. Upon information and belief Defendant Neil Albert, of the District of Columbia was a principal
member of the Board of Directors of DCWASA-BD (See Exhibits F.1.1. and F.1.2), a non-
government independent utility company, during the time period in question: August 20, 2008 to June
20, 2009.
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 28 of 213
345
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
156/458
22
79. Upon information and belief Defendant District of Columbia Department of Small and Local Business
Development officials endorsed and registered primary Defendant (s) Fort Myer Construction
Corporation, Anchor Construction Corporation, Civil Construction L.L.C. and Capitol Paving of D.C.
Inc with affirmative action preference points to bid on District of Columbia and non - District of
Columbia Government IFB soliciitations for a point or percentage of price reduction on final bid price
on all sealed IFB s, during the time period in question: August 20, 20008 through September 25,
20009.
80. Upon information and belief Defendant Joseph Cotruvo, was or is Chairman of the Retail Services
Committee of DCWASA-RSC (See Exhibits F.2.9, G.1.12, G.2.1, G.3.4 and G.3.12), a non-
government independent utility company, during the time period in question from August 20, 2008 to
May 15, 2009.
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 29 of 213
346
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
157/458
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
158/458
24
85. Plaintiff was the lowest bidder participating in IFB solicitations for Defendant (s) District of Columbia
Water and Sewer Authority, District of Columbia Department of Transportation and District of
Columbia Department of Public Works.
86. Plaintiff CNA is listed on recorded Bid Tabulations for IFB solicitations for Defendant (s) District of
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, District of Columbia Department of Transportation and District
of Columbia Department of Public Works as follows:
i. DCWASA IFB # 080020 CNA bid $11,154,500.00 (lowest bidder)
ii. DCWASA IFB # 090080 CNA bid $5,040,000.00 (corrected filed lowest bidder)
iii. DCWASA IFB # 090020 CNA bid $2,817,600.00 (2nd
lowest bidder)
iv. DOT DCKA-2009-B-0025 CNA bid $54, 252,805.00 (lowest corrected bidder)
v. DOT DCKA-2009-B-0193 CNA bid $2,376,095.90 (4th lowest corrected bidder)
vi. DPW DCKT-2009-B-0003 CNA bid $3,639,901.00 (lowest bidder)
i. See Exhibit D.9.1ii. See Exhibit D.9.2iii See Exhibit D.9.3iv. See Exhibit D.10.3v. See Exhibit D.11.1vi. See Exhibit D.11.3
87. Plaintiff CNAs project estimator, John C. Cheeks has the authority of assembling and estimating all
costs for IFB solicitations for competitive sealed bids, submitted to DCWASA: IFB # 080020
Replacement of Small Diameter Priority Water Mains for 2008 Construction, IFB # 090080 Sewer
Liner Replacement, and IFB # 090020 Fire Hydrant Replacement.
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 31 of 213
348
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
159/458
25
88. Plaintiff s project estimator, John C. Cheeks has the authority of assembling bids from subcontractors
and vendors for estimating all costs for IFB solicitations for competitive sealed bids, submitted to
District of Columbia Department of Transportation: DCKA-2009-B-0025, Pavement Restoration City-
Wide and District of Columbia Department of Public Works solicitation IFB DCKT-2009-B-0003,
On-Site Preventive Maintenance Services.
89. Plaintiff CNA uses fair business practices competing for Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority, District of Columbia Department of Transportation, and District of Columbia
Department of Public Works IFB solicitations. (See Exhibit C.1.10)
90. Plaintiff CNA, as an independent company, assigned one individual as lead project estimator (John C.
Cheeks) to compete against named Defendants; Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation,
Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc, Defendant Civil
Construction L.L.C. and other companies herein alleged to be working in concert (See Exhibit M.1.2,
M.5.5, and M.6.6)on various IFB solicitations for DCWASA and DCDOT in the time period in
question, August 20, 2008 through March 28, 2009, AD.
91. Defendants Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation,
Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc., Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. during time period
August 20, 2008 through March 25, 2009 participated in the (15) afore-listed IFB solicitations. In those
solicitations, officers, directors, owners, and managers engaged all of these companies in strategizing
and colluding schemes against Plaintiff.
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 32 of 213
349
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
160/458
26
92. DCWASA IFB # 080020
On August 20, 2008, Plaintiff CNA submitted a bid in response to DCWASAs IFB for Bid # 080020
entitled: Replacement of Small Diameter Priority Water Mains for 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the
IFB). Plaintiff proposed to furnish all plant, labor, materials, and equipment to perform the work set
forth in the IFB in consideration for payment from DCWASA of the total sum of $11,154,500. 00 (See
Exhibit D.9.1).
93. Submitted with the above CNA bid was a bid bond of $557,725.00 representing 5% of the bid (See
Exhibit D.7). The bond was submitted in the form of a company check (See Exhibit D.7.5).
94. Simultaneously, Defendant Western issued guaranteed bid bonds on behalf of the Defendant
construction companies for the beneficial interest of DCWASA. Upon information and belief,
Defendant construction companies were all guaranteed under the same surety bond company.
95. On August 20, 2008 at approximately 2:19 p.m. at the bid room located at Central Operations Facility,
5000 Overlook Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. the bids for the IFB were opened by DCWASA
procurement officer, Carlo Enciso.
96. According to the bid call the seven competing companies; bids were announced as follows:
i. $12,263,000.00 Sagres Construction
ii. $18,780,139.00 Flippo Construction
iii $13,012,300.00 Civil Construction L.L.C.
iv. $11,154,500.00 CNA, Inc.
v. $11,997,930.00 Anchor Construction Corporation
vi. $23,735,830.00 Corinthian Contractors
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 33 of 213
350
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
161/458
27
vii. $12,850,422.99 Fort Myer Construction Corporation
viii. $13,277,000.00 Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.
97. Immediately following the bid call, CNA was announced as the lowest bidder. On September 9,
2008, nearly three weeks after being awarded he bid, Plaintiff received a letter from DCWASA,
informing CNA that: The District of Colombia Water and Sewer Authority (DCWASA) has
declared that your bid submitted on August 20, 2008 to be Non-Responsive and therefore not
eligible for award. An element considered in this decision was that your bid did not include a
completed Bid Bond with sureties or certified check(s) for 5% of the bid amount (See Exhibit
H.1.1).
98. On September 28, 2009, CNA filed a Bid Protest on the grounds of bid-rigging, discrimination,
failure to give adequate notice and failure to give time to cure compliance issues. In its protest,
CNA requested an equitable allotted time to reissue the bid bond to DCWASA and requested
DCWASA reinstate the award to CNA (See Exhibit K.1.1).
99. On November 6, 2008, the approval to execute Contract # 080020 was granted to Defendant
Anchor Construction Corporation (See Exhibit G.1.11). At no point in time was CNA provided the
opportunity to rectify the minor deficiency in its bid as required by The DCWASA Procurement
Regulations 5321(See Exhibit E.1.17). Plaintiff has taken all reasonable approaches and methods
to mitigate damages by suspending all work , refraining from submitting bids to other construction
bidding process, and seeking the appropriate administrative remedies. Since those remedies are
now exhausted, Plaintiff has no recourse but to file this action.
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 34 of 213
351
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
162/458
28
Other Bid Results
100. DCWASA IFB # 090080
Sewer Liner Replacement March 25, 2009, DCWASA IFB # 090080.
101. DCWASA failed to respond to CNAs bid protest, (See Exhibits, K.2.1 and K.2.2).
Company Bid Amount
i. Fort Myer Construction Corporation* $ 7,484,160.00
ii. Anchor Construction Corporation* $ 7,784,704.00
iii. Flippo Construction Company Inc.** $ 6,605,360.00iv. Civil Construction, L.L.C.* $ 7,974,540.00
v. Corinthian Construction Corporation** $ 6,424,140.00
Vi Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.* $ 7,675 200.00
Vii CNA*** $ 5,040,000.00
* Affiliated Companies** Others in question, affiliated with Defendants
*** filed Protest to correct bid contingency items by DCWASA.
102. DCWASA IFB # 090020
Fire Hydrant Replacement, BOD 5/7/09
DCWASA allowed several of the bidders listed below to violate the Non-Collusion Affidavit
Company Bid Amount
i. Fort Myer Construction Corporation* $ 3,126,150.00
ii. Civil Construction, L.L. C.* $ 3,251,880.00
iii. Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.* $ 3,323,760.00
iv. Flippo Construction Company, Inc.** $ 4,199,370.00
v. Corinthian Contractors, Inc.** $ 3,328,400.00
Vi Sagres Construction Corporation** $ 3,376,550.00
Vii Anchor Construction Corporation* $ 3,301,775.00Viii Nastos Construction** $ 2,703,160.00
Ix CNA $ 2,817,600.00
X ODonnell Construction Company $ 3,108,000.00
* Affiliated Companies** Others in question, affiliated with Defendants
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 35 of 213
352
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
163/458
29
103. DOT DCKA-2009-B-0025
Pavement Restoration City-Wide
The D.C. Department of Transportation allowed companies to violate the Non-Collusion
Agreement.
Company Bid Amount
i. Fort Myer Construction Corporation* $ 68,568,650.40ii. Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.* $ 78,882,475.00
iii. Senate Asphalt** $ 88,911,499.55
iv. CNA $ 54,651,150.00
* Affiliated Companies** Others in question, affiliated with Defendants
104. In addition See Eleventh Count
105. DOT DCKA-2009-B-0193 Safe Routes to Schools
Company Bid Amounti. Omni Excavators** $ 2,315,830.00
ii. Potomac Construction Co.** $ 2,249.280.00
iii. CNA $ 2,376,095.901
iv. Fort Myer Construction Corporation* $ 2,338,405.00
v. Capitol Paving of D.C * $ 2,341,770.00
Vi Civil Construction, L.L. C.* $ 2,415,255.00
Vii Anchor Construction Corporation* $ 2,161,446.00
Viii A & M Concrete ** $ 2,682,519.351
Ix Prince Construction, Co.** $ 2,440,235.00
* corrected bid
* Affiliated Companies** Others in question, affiliated with Defendants1Corrected bid
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 36 of 213
353
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
164/458
First Count30
FIRST COUNT: VIOLATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST
ACT, AFFILIATED COMPANIES BIDDING FEDERALLY FUNDED
INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRACTS
First Count Defendants:
Fort Myer Construction Corporation;2237 33rdSt. N.E.Washington, D.C. 20018
Anchor Construction Corporation2254 25
thPlace. N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20018 ;
Civil Construction, L.L.C.2413 Schuster Drive,Cheverly, MD, 20781
Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.2211 Channing St. N.E.Washington, D.C. 20018
106. In pursuant of Section 1 of the Sherman Anti- Trust ,Act 15 U.S.C. 1 Plaintiff asserts
the following:
107. Time in question August 20, 2008 through September 25, 2009.
108. Plaintiff reasserts all prior allegations as though they were stated herein.
109. Plaintiff sustained damages when Defendants engaged in a bid-rigging conspiracy.
110. Plaintiff asserts that the bid-rigging conspiracy violates section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust
Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 37 of 213
354
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
165/458
First Count31
111. Defendants actions in this counts are defined as:
i. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise or conspiracy, in restraint
of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, is declared to
be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or
conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and , on
conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine, not exceeding $100,000,000.00 if a
corporation, or if any other person, $1,000,000.00, or by imprisonment not exceeding
10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000001----000-.html. Cornell
University Law School quoting US Code Title 15, 15 U.S.C.A. 1.
112. In order to bring a private claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act, a Plaintiff must
show three elements: (1) an agreement, conspiracy, or combination among two or more
persons or distinct business entities; (2) which is intended to harm or unreasonably restrain
competition; and (3) which actually causes injury to competition, beyond the impact on the
claimant, within a field of commerce in which the claimant is engaged (i.e., an antitrust
injury'). McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 1988).
113. Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, "every contract, combination in the form of trust or
otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce is declared to be illegal. 15
U.S.C. 1
.
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 38 of 213
355
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
166/458
First Count32
114. Therefore, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act prohibits concerted action in "unreasonable"
restraint of trade, and, some concerted actions are considered so presumptively and
perniciously anti-competitive as to constitute "per se" violations of the antitrust statute. In
that case the court may curtail its review of the relevant industry and the impact of the
alleged restraint, and effectively reduces the evidence required to prove an antitrust violation.
"Bid-rigging," as alleged by Plaintiff in the instant action, is a per se violation. United States
v. Sergeant Elec. Co., 785 F.2d 1123, 1127 (3d Cir. 1986).
115. Defendant Construction Companies engaged in a bid-rigging conspiracy (See Exhibit
A.3)by submitting collusive bids to make the winning bid on the IFB submitted by
Defendant Anchor appear competitive and reasonable.
116. Defendants DCWASA-BOD, DCWASA-PD, and DCWASA-RSC, District Department
of Transportation (DDOT) Committee on Public Works and Transportation (CPWT), of the
D.C. Council, aided and abetted such conspiracy by accepting and ultimately awarding the
bid on the IFB to one of the conspiring companies, when DCWASA, DDOT, D.C. Council,
and Defendant Western Surety had actual knowledge that Defendant companies shared
common ownership and/or interlocking Directors.
117. Defendant Western engaged in the bid-rigging conspiracy by securing the bid bond(s) for
all of the Defendant Construction Companies on a separate or single bond when they knew or
should have known that the Defendant Construction Companies were engaged in collusive
anti-competitive practices made possible by Defendant Westerns bond guarantees to District
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 39 of 213
356
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
167/458
First Count33
of Columbia Department of Transportation and Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water
and Sewer Authority Contract Officers.
118. Jose Rodriquez is a Director of Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation (See, Exhibit
C.3.8 ). Jose Rodriquez is also the Principal Owner of FMCC (See Exhibit C.4.10), as well
as the President and a Director of FMCC(See Exhibit C.4.10). Additionally, Jose Rodriquez
is one of the principal managers of Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. (See Exhibit C.4.10).
119. Upon information and belief, G&G Development and Paving Company changed its name to
C&F Construction Company (See Exhibit C.3.12). C&F Construction then became
Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation (See Exhibits C.3.1 and C.3.2).
120. Defendant Lewis F. Shrensky is the Secretary, Treasurer, Director and Registered Agent of
FMCC(See, Exhibits C.4.9 and C.4.10). Additionally, Defendant Lewis F. Shrensky is one of
the principal managers of Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. (See Exhibit C.4.10).Upon
information and belief, Defendant Lewis Shrensky was an equitable owner of Flippo
Construction during the time period in question.
121. Defendant Francisco Rodriguez Neto is a Director of Defendant Anchor Construction
Corporation (SeeExhibit C.3.8). Defendant Francisco Rodriquez Neto is also the Vice
President and a Director of Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation (See Exhibit
C.2.4). Furthermore, Defendant Francisco Rodriguez Neto is the President, Treasurer and a
Director of Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.. (See Exhibit C.5.3).
122. Defendant Florentino Gregorio is President and member of the Board of Directors of
Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation/
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 40 of 213
357
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
168/458
First Count34
123. Defendant Cristina R. Gregorio is a member of the Board of Directors of Defendant Anchor
Construction Corporation and the daughter of Jose Rodrigues (aka Jose Rodriguez See
Exhibit C for companies)
124. On August 20, 2008, Plaintiff CNA submitted a bid in response to the IFB. Plaintiff proposed
to furnish all plant, labor, materials, and equipment to perform the work set forth in the IFB
in consideration for payment from DCWASA of the total sum of $11,154,500.00 (See Exhibit
D.9.1)Note, that upon request by Plaintiff, this was the most current Two Year Report
provided by the Government of the District of Columbia, Department of Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs.
125. At no point in time, Plaintiff CNA was provided the opportunity to rectify the minor
deficiency in its bid as required by the Regulation.
126. As a result of the Defendants conduct described above, competition in the relevant market
has injured CNA. Plaintiff has sustained monetary damages, damage to its reputation, and
loss of goodwill, and taxpayers have lost the benefit of competition in the relevant market.
127. The Defendants, through their bid-rigging conspiracy, prevented Plaintiff CNA from winning
the IFB that the Defendants had evidently allocated to themselves, by submitting the bids as
if they were from separate entities when, in fact, the so-called competing bids were submitted
by companies with overlapping and common equity interest.
Summary of Contracts Obtained by Illegal Means
and Joint and Several Liability by Principal Defendant Corporations
128.
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 41 of 213
358
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
169/458
First Count35
A. DCWASA IFB # 080020Plaintiff's IFB Contract Bid,$11,154,500.00 times 3.
i. Fort Myer Construction ,Corp. $33,463,500.00
ii. Anchor Construction Corp $33,463,500.00
iii. Civil Construction, LLC $33,463,500.00
iv. Capitol Paving of D.C, Inc. $33,463,500.00
B. DCWASA IFB # 090080
Plaintiff's IFB Contract Bid,$5,040,000.00 times 3.
i. Fort Myer Construction ,Corp. $15,120,000.00
ii. Anchor Construction Corp $15,120,000.00
iii. Civil Construction, LLC $15,120,000.00iv. Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc. $15,120,000.00
C. DCWASA IFB # 090020
Plaintiff's IFB Contract Bid,$2,817,600.00 times 3.
i. Fort Myer Construction ,Corp. $8,452,800.00
ii. Anchor Construction Corp $8,452,800.00
iii. Civil Construction, LLC $8,452,800.00iv Capitol Paving of D.C, Inc. $8,452,800.00
D. DOT IFB #DCKA-2009-B-0025
Plaintiff's IFB Contract Bid,$54,252,805.00 times 3.
i. Fort Myer Construction ,Corp. $162,758,415.00
ii Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc. $162,758,415.00
E. DOT IFB #DCKA-2009-B-0193
Plaintiff's IFB Contract Bid,$2,376,095.90 times 3.
Fort Myer Construction Corporation $7,128,287.70Capitol Paving of D.C $7,128,287.70
Civil Construction, L.L. C. $7,128,287.70Anchor Construction Corporation $7,128,287.70
Conclusion
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 42 of 213
359
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
170/458
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
171/458
First Count37
135. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1 and 15, relief stated, Plaintiff prays for amount of damage award
to be paid all or in part by each Defendant named on this Count, in the amount of $
582,175,180.80.
136. All of foregoing requests for damage awards and relief are requested or in such other sum as
the court determines is just and equitable in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1 through 15, or
as otherwise just and equitable pursuant the other claims and counts in this case.
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 44 of 213
361
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
172/458
Second Count38
SECOND COUNT: VIOLATION OF SHERMAN ANTI - TRUST ACT BY A SURETY
COMPANY; ENDORSEMENT AND REGISTRAR ISSUANCE OF SURETY BID BOND
INSTRUMENT(S) FOR AFFILIATED DEFENDANT CUSTOMERS OR CLIENTS .
DefendantWestern Surety Company a Subsidiary WritingCompany of CNA Surety101 South Phillips AvenueSioux Falls, SD 57104
137. Time in Question August 20, 2009 through September 25, 2009.
138. Plaintiff reasserts all prior allegations as though they were stated herein.
139. Violations of law by Western Surety Company defined as:
i. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1890 passed to combat anticompetitive practices,reduce market domination by individual corporations, and preserve unfetteredcompetition as the rule of trade.
ii. Surety Insurance Company A company that employs the use of guaranty insurance(a.k.a. surety insurance):Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), insurance guaranty insurance.
iii. Obligee one who is protected by a Surety bond (Source: Merriam-webster.com..
iv. Surety - A person who is primarily liable for the payment of another's debt or the
performance of another's obligation. Source: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004),
surety.
v. Principal - the party that requires the bond and on whose behalf the bond is written for.
vi. Customer one that purchase a commodity or serviceSource: Merriam- webster.com
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 45 of 213
362
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
173/458
Second Count39
vii. Client- a person who engages the professional advice or service of anotherSource:Merriam-webster.com
viii. Endorsement the act of endorsing the signature on a check, contract, instrument, orother document endorsement.
ix. Approbation - an act of approving formally or officiallySource:Merriam-webster.com
x. Registrar A person who keeps official recordsSource:. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), registrar
xi. .Bid Bond A bond filed in public construction projects to ensure that the bidding
contractor will enter into the contract. The bid bond is a type of performance bond..
Source: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), bond bid bond
140. Defendant Western Surety Company a Subsidiary Writing Company of CNA Surety
(Western Surety) a surety insurance company (See Exhibits J.4, J.5 and J.6)in the United
States of America and registrar of an endorsed financial instrument (Bid Bond) to (3)
Companies: Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation; Defendant Anchor
Construction Corporation; Defendant Civil Construction, L.L.C., (See Exhibit J.5) and
other companies in question, owned or affiliated by financial relationships and/or control
by one or more of the same persons, parties, directors, officers, and/or/owners known as
customers.
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 46 of 213
363
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
174/458
Second Count40
141. Western Surety is the registrar issuer and endorser of a separate bid bond or single bid
bond(s) to the Defendants named, Defendant Fort Myer Construction; Defendant Anchor
Construction Corporation; Defendant Civil Construction, L.L.C. unilateral antitrust activity
by its customers at DCWASA (See Exhibit J.1), and DCDOT. Since Western surety was
the insurer for all four of the colluding companies, Western, through its underwriters and
officers knew, or should have known that it was insuring all of the bidders upon each of the
contracts.
142. Western therefore, knew or should have known, as a matter of established fact that the
companies were associated and had interlocking directorates. Therefore, the liability of
Western is inherent in the nature of its own duties (to investigate and prevent the very
unlawful acts in which Western participated and facilitated. Western was therefore a key
actor in the frauds committed which are described herein.
143. Western Surety gave customers/clients, (Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation;
Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation; Defendant Civil Construction, L.L.C., and
others in question) authority to compete with improper tactics to attain or maintain
monopoly status that violates US Antitrust monopoly and market power control with use of
their fidelity surety instrument(s), (bid bond(s)).
144. Western Surety fueled Defendants named (Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation;
Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation; Defendant Civil Construction, L.L.C.) with
fidelity surety bonds to control nearly 100 percent during time in question, August 20, 2008
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 47 of 213
364
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
175/458
Second Count41
through September 25, 2009. Actions committed by Western Surety paralyzed, crippled
and created financial hardship(s) to Plaintiff in the following areas described:
i.Loss of goodwill to current employees and consultants for future earnings of wages or
contracts,
ii.Loss of goodwill and ability to repay investors, creditors, lien holders and operational
company agreements (See Exhibits N.1.6 and N.1.7),
iii. Loss of salary to sustain personal financial commitments by Executive Officer of
Plaintiff.
145. In Pursuant of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (SEA) Plaintiff and Title 15,
Chapter 14B, Subchapter IV-A part B, 694b and 694c Resolving fund for Surety Bond
Guarantees Plaintiff states the following:
Loss of Profit and Earnings
146. A. Western Surety Company/CNA Surety : Plaintiffs Loss of Contract Profit
Earnings by joint monopoly tactics from customers/clients.
i. DCWASA IFB # 080020, $ 892,360.00 8% of Plaintiffs bid of $11,154,500.00
1. Fort Myer Construction Corporation $ 892,360.00
2. Anchor Construction Corporation $ 892,360.00
3. Civil Construction L.L.C. $ 892,360.00
4. Western Surety Company $ 892,360.00
Total $3,569,440.00
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 48 of 213
365
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
176/458
Second Count42
ii. DCWASA IFB # 090080 $ 403,200.00 8% of Plaintiffs bid of $ 5,040,00.00
1. Western Surety Company $ 403,200.00
2. Fort Myer Construction Corporation $ 403,200.00
3. Anchor Construction Corporation $ 403,200.00
4. Civil Construction L.L.C. $ 403,200.00
Total $1,612,800.00
iii. DCWASA IFB # 090020 $ 225,408.00, 8% of Plaintiffs bid of $ 2,817,600.00.
1. Western Surety Company $ 225,408.00
2. Fort Myer Construction Corporation $ 225,408.00
3. Anchor Construction Corporation $ 225,408.00
4. Civil Construction L.L.C. $ 225,408.00
Total $ 901,632.00
Total Requested for A $ 5,633,242.20
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 49 of 213
366
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
177/458
Second Count43
Non-Collusion Affidavit Violation
147. B. Western Surety/CNA: Non-Collusion Affidavit (See Exhibit D.12) Violation of
Defendant Customer(s) and or Client(s) awarded contract through use of Fidelity Surety
Bond Instrument (s)
i. DCWASA IFB # 080020 (Anchor Construction Corporation) $11,997,930.00
ii. DCKA-2009-B-0025 (Fort Myer Construction Corporation) $68,568,650.40
iii. DCKA-2009-B-0193 (Anchor Construction Corporation) $2,161,473.00
Total Requested for B $ 82,728,053.40
Bid Bond Issuance to Defendant Customers
148. C. Western Surety/CNA: for the Issuance of Surety Bond(s) or Surety Bond to each
Defendant customer/ client for participation and use of Surety Bond Instrument to bid on
IFB solicitations: Damages in the amount of 5% of Bid Bond of each contract.
i. DCWASA IFB # 080020
a.. Fort Myer Construction Corporation 5% of $12,850,422.99 = $642,521.15
b. Anchor Construction Corporation 5% of $11,997,930.00 = $599,896.50
c. Civil Construction, L.L.C. 5% of $13,012,300.00 = $650,615.00
Total 5% of $ 37,860,652.99 = 1,893,032.65
ii. DCWASA IFB # 090080
a. Fort Myer Construction Corporation 5% of $7,484,160.00 = $374,208.00
b. Anchor Construction Corporation 5% of $7,784,704.00 = $389,235.20
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 50 of 213
367
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
178/458
Second Count44
c. Civil Construction, L.L.C. 5% of $7,974,540.00 = $398,727.00
Total 5% of $ 23,243,404.00= $1,162,170.20
iii. DCWASA IFB # 090020
a. Anchor Construction Corporation 5% of $3,301,775.00 = $165,088.75
b. Civil Construction, L.L.C. 5% of $3,251,880.00 = $162,594.00
c. Fort Myer Construction Corporation 5% of $3,126,150.00 = $156,307.50
Total 5% of $ 9,679,805.00= $483,990.25
Total for C: $3,539,193.10
Conclusion
149. Defendant Western Surety Company/CNA and Defendant Paul T. Bruflat, Senior Vice
President jointly endorsed and registered all bid bonds for primary Defendant and affiliated
Defendant companies to violate United States Anti Trust laws which injured Plaintiff
severely financially, interfered with Plaintiffs economic gainful growth and destroyed
Plaintiffs financial growth.
150. Plaintiffs injury can be repaired by means of financial restitution from all Defendants
Western Surety Company and Defendant Paul T. Bruflat and by injunctive relief as to the
discontinuation of the subject unlawful contracts..
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 51 of 213
368
7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime
179/458
Second Count45
Plea for Damage Awards
151. Plaintiff requests joint and several damages from Defendant Western Surety Company,
CNA Surety for profit loss of contract earnings by joint monopoly tactics from
customer/clients (A above) in the amount of $ 5,633,242.20.
152. Plaintiff requests joint and several damages from Defendant Western Surety Company,
CNA Surety