The following was converted by OCR [optical character recognition] from the orginal court document.
So be aware that there will be misspellings and odd characters.
=============================================================================
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
D-l KWAME M. KILPATRICK,
D-2 BOBBY W. FERGUSON,
D-3 BERNARD N. KILPATRICK,
D-4 VICTOR M. MERCADO, and
D-5 DERRICK A. MILLER,
Defendants.
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CRIMINAL NO. CR-10-20403~NGE
HON. NANCY G. EDMUNDS
VIOLATIONS:
I8 U.S.C. § l962(d) (RICO conspiracy)
18 U.S.C. § 666(a) (bribery)
18 U.S.C. § 1951 (extortion)
18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 (mail/wire fraud)
18 U.S.C. § 1512 (obstruction of justice)
26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) (false tax return)
26 U.S.C. § 7201 (tax evasion)
18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding & abetting)
18 U.S.C. § 1963 (forfeiture)
FIRST SUPERSEDING
GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
At all times relevant to this indictment:
l. Defendant KWAME
M. KILPATRICK (“KWAME KILPATRICK”) served as a
representative to the Michigan House of Representatives from 1996 through 2001. He was
elected Mayor of the City of Detroit in November 2001 and re-elected in November 2005. He
held the position of Mayor from January I, 2002 to September 18, 2008. During that time, his
annual salary ranged from about $158,000 to $176,000. The City of Detroit (“City”) was a unit
of local government, a municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the State of Michigan
within the Eastern District of Michigan. The City provided services to its citizens through
departments, agencies and offices of the executive branch of the City, which was headed by.
1 KWAME KILPATRICICS duties and responsibilities included
supervising the officers and employees of the executive departments, agencies and offices of the
City. He had authority or influence over the following agencies, departments or entities, among
others, which were supervised, operated, funded or influenced in whole or in part by the
City: the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department; the City of Detroit Buildings & Safety
Engineering Department; the Detroit Building Authority; the Cobo Civic Center; the City of
Detroit General Retirement System; the City of Detroit Police and Fire Pension Fund; the Detroit
Economic Growth Corporation; the Economic Development Corporation of the ‘City of Detroit;
and the Downtown Development Authority.
2. Defendant BOBBY W. FERGUSON (“FERGUSON”) owned, operated or
controlled Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. and Xcel Construction Services, lnc., two businesses
located in the City which obtained contracts or subcontracts for work to be performed for the
City, its departments and agencies, _
3. Defendant BERNARD N. KILPATRICK (“BERNARD KILPATRICK”), the
father of KWAME KILPATRICK, was the president and owner of Maestro Associates, LLC, a
purported consulting company located within the City which was paid by clients who sought
contracts, subcontracts or investments with the City and its pension funds.
4. Defendant VICTOR M. MERCADO (“MERCADO”) was the Director of the
Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (“DWSD”) from about June 2002 to July 2008. During
that time, his annual salary ranged from about $230,000 to $240,00(l. During his tenure as
DWSD’s Director, MERCADO had supervisory authority over the administration and awarding
of more than $2 billion of contracts between DWSD and private contractors.
.2.
5. Defendant DERRICK A. MILLER (“MILLER”) was Deputy Chief of Staff to
Michigan State Representative KWAME KILPATRICK from about 2000 to 2002. Between 0
about 2002 and 2008, MILLER sewed first as Chief Administrative Officer then as Chief
Information Officer for Detroit Mayor KWAME KILPATRICK. Among his duties at the
Mayor’s Office, MILLER acted as a liaison between the Mayor’s Office and both the Cobo Civic
Center and the DWSD.
6. The City received federal assistance in excess of $10,000 during each of calendar
years 2002 through 2008. During this time period, the City contracted with and purchased goods
and services from companies engaged in interstate commerce.
COUNT ONE
(18 U.S.C. § l962(d) - Racketeering Conspiracy)
D-1 KWAME M. KILPATRICK
D-2 BOBBY W. FERGUSON
D-3 BERNARD N. KILPATRICK
D-4 VICTOR M. MERCADO
D-5 DERRICK A. MILLER
7. The Grand Jury incorporates by reference paragraphs l through 6 of the “General
Allegations" above as if they were set forth in full herein.
“THE ENTERPRISE "
8. At all times relevant to this indictment, defendants KWAIVFE KILPATRICK,
BOBBY FERGUSON, BERNARD KILPATRICK, VICTOR MERCADO, DERRICK MILLER
and others known and unknown, were a group of individuals associated in fact which constituted
an enterprise as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). This enterprise is referred to for purposes of
this count as the Kilpatrick Enterprise. The Kilpatrick Enterprise, including its members and
.3.
4
associates, constituted an ongoing organization whose members functioned as a continuing unit
for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the Enterprise. The Kilpatrick Enterprise
was engaged in, and its activities affected, interstate commerce.
OBJECTIVES "OF THE ENTERPRISE
9. The objectives of the Kilpatrick Enterprise included the following:
a. Financially enriching Enterprise members, associates and their families by
using the power and authority of KWAME KILPATRlCK’s position as a member of the
Michigan House of Representatives and Mayor of the City of Detroit to commit extortion,
bribery and fraud;
b. Financially enriching Enterprise members, associates and their families by
defrauding donors to nonprofit entities under the control of Enterprise members,
including the Kilpatrick Civic Fund, Kilpatrick for Mayor and the Kilpatrick Inaugural
Committee; and
c. Concealing and protecting the activities of the Enterprise from detection
by law enforcement officials and the federal judiciary, as well as from exposure by the
Detroit City Council and the news media, through means that included, Hmong other
things, perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice.
THE RACKETEERING CONSPIRACY
10. Beginning in or about 2000, and continuing until about 2009, in the Eastern
District of Michigan and elsewhere, defendants KWAME KILPATRICK, BOBBY FERGUSON,
BERNARD KILPATRICK, VICTOR MERCADO and DERRICK MILLER, together with other
persons known and unknown, being persons employed by the City and/or associated with the
.4.
Kilpatrick Enterprise, which engaged in and the activities of which affected interstate commerce,
knowingly and intentionally conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), by conducting and
participating directly and indirectly in the conduct of the Enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of
racketeering activity involving multiple acts indictable or chargeable under the following ‘
provisions of federal law:
P-“ 9'”
. 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (extortion);
18 U.S.C. §~l341 (mail fraud);
. 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud);
18 U.S.C. § 1512 (obstruction of justice);
and multiple acts involving state offenses chargeable under the following provisions of state law:
c. M.C.L. 750.213 (malicious threats to extort money);
f. M.C.L. 750.1 18 (public officer accepting bribes).
1 1. It was a further part of the conspiracy that each defendant agreed that a
conspirator would commit at least two acts of racketeering activity in the conduct of the affairs of
the Enterprise.
THE MEANS AND METHODS OF THE RACKETEERING ACHVII1
Among the means and methods by which the defendants and their associates conducted
and participated in the conduct of the racketeering activity of the Kilpatrick Enterprise were the
following:
I. EXTORTION OF MUNICIPAL CONTRACTORS
AND RIGGING OF PUBLIC CONTRACTS
12. As set forth more fully in this section, below, in and between 2002 and 2008,
KWAME KILPATRICK, BOBBY FERGUSON, BERNARD KILPATRICK, VICTOR
MERCADO and DERRICK MILLER, assisted by other members of the Enterprise, extorted
-5-
municipal contractors by coercing them to include FERGUSON in public contracts and/or by
rigging the award of public contracts to ensure FERGUSON obtained a portion of the revenue
from those contracts. As a result of their extortion and contract rigging, FERGUSON obtained
"tens of millions of dollars of work and revenues from municipal contracts and municipal
contractors, a portion of which FERGUSON shared with other members of the Enterprise.
A. Kwame Kilpatrick, Assisted by Mercado, Miller and Bernard Kilpatrick
Held Up Company I’s $50 Million Sewer Lining Contract Until Company I
Agreed to Give Ferguson Work Which Ultimately Totaled $24.7 Million
After Extensions
13. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, between in or about early 2002
and November 2006, KWAME KILPATRJCK, assisted by VICTOR MERCADO, DERRICK
MILLER and BERNARD KILPATRICK, held up a $50 million sewer lining contract that had
been approved by the DWSD and its Board of Water Commissioners to be awarded to Company
I. After KWAME KILPATRICK, MERCADO, MILLER and FERGUSON extorted Company I
through the fear of economic harm (i.e., losing the contract), Company I agreed to replace its
minority subcontractor with FERGUSON, causing FERGUSON to receive sewer work and
revenues totaling more than $23.7 million, following change orders and amendments which
increased the total contract amount.
14. In or about early 2002, BERNARD KILPATRICK alerted KWAME
KILPATRICK that Company I was planning to use a certain minority subcontractor on the sewer
lining contract, instead of FERGUSON.
15. In or about early 2002, KWAME KILPATRICK refused to approve the lining y
contract between DWSD and Company I, although the contract already had been approved by the
-6.
~ = - ‘:2; ' -
DWSD and its Board of Water Commissioners, because FERGUSON was not part of the
contract.
16. In or about early 2002, MILLER, the Chief Administrative Officer of the City,
contacted a representative of Company I to instruct him to meet FERGUSON and give
FERGUSON 5% of the lining contract.
17. In or about April 2002, KWAME KILPATRICK told a representative of
Company I that if the company wanted KWAME KILPATRICK to sign the lining contract,
FERGUSON needed to be substituted for Company I’ s selected minority subcontractor.
I8. In or about May 2002, FERGUSON met with representatives of Company I and
demanded that they pay him a base minimum profit of about $l .5 million, unrelated to any work
FERGUSON would perform.
19. On or about June l, 2002, MILLER asked a Company I representative who was
attending the Mackinac Island Regional Policy Conference whether Company I had reached an
agreement with FERGUSON on the lining contract.
20. In or about June 2002, FERGUSON entered an agreement with Company I
where he would get at least $10 million worth of work on the lining contract, with an assured
minimum profit of about $1.5 million. FERGUSON reached l.hIS deal with Company I by
exploiting the company’s fear that KWAME KILPATRICK would continue to hold up its
contract or would otherwise harm its business interests if Company I failed to reach an agreement
with FERGUSON.
_7_
B. Kwnme Kilpatrick and Mercado Cancelled Company L’s $10 Million Sewer
Repair Contract Because Company L Refused Ferguson's Demand for a 25%
Share, then Awarded the Work to Company I after Company I Agreed to
Give Ferguson a Portion of the Contract
21. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, in and between February and
July 2003, after Company L refused FERGUSON’s extortionate demand for a 25% share of a
$10 million as-needed emergency sewer repair contract, KWAME KILPATRICK and
MERCADO cancelled the contract. Concurrently, after Company I agreed to give FERGUSON .
work on the as-needed emergency sewer contract if Company I were to receive it, MERCADO
incorporated the $1-0 million contract into Company I’ s existing sewer lining contract.
22. On or about February 20, 2003, Company L paid BERNARD KILPATRICK
$2,500. I
23. On or about February 26, 2003, MERCADO sent a memo to the Board of Water
Commissioners asking it to authorize MERCADO to give the as-needed sewer repair contract to
Company L. The Board approved MERCADO‘s request.
24. On or about March 25, 2003, FERGUSON asked KWAME KILPATRICK to
place a lengthy hold on the as-needed sewer repair contract so FERGUSON could determine
whether Company L or Company I would give him a better deal as a subcontractor on the
contract. FERGUSON asked, “YOU I-IAVENT RELEASED THAT CONTRACT RlGHT[?]“
KWAME KILPATRICK responded, “RIGHT. THEY KNOW I’m HOLDING IT.” FERGUSON
replied, “ITS STILL ‘COOL’WITH YOU.I NEED TO HOLD IT FOR A LONG TIME ITS
KNOW [no] NEED FOR IT AND SOMETHING ELSE ALSO.”
-3-
25. In or about the Spring of 2003, FERGUSON went to the home of a Company L
representative and told him that FERGUSON wanted 25% of Company L’s as-needed sewer
repair contract. FERGUSON told the Company L representative that, even though the Board of
Water Commissioners approved the contract, the contract could be stopped by KWAME
KILPATRICK, who had yet to approve it. Company L refused to give FERGUSON a 25% share
of the contract.
26. In or about the Spring of 2003, a representative of Company L met with
BERNARD KILPATRJCK to seek assistance in gaining approval of the contract. BERNARD
KILPATRICK advised the Company L representative that BERNARD KILPATRICK would
arrange a meeting vw'th FERGUSON, which he did.
27. On or about May 8, 2003, MERCADO asked a representative of Company Ito
provide DWSD with Company I‘ s unit pricing for the work contemplated by the as-needed sewer
repair contract.
28. In or about May 2003, FERGUSON reached an agreement with Company I
about the share of work FERGUSON would receive on the as-needed sewer repair contract.
29. On or about July 28, 2003, Company L’s as-needed sewer repair contract was
cancelled by MERCADO.
30. In or about September 2003, DWSD agreed to include the as-needed sewer
repair work in Company I‘ s existing sewer lining contract.
.9.
C. Kwame Kilpatrick Steered Work to Ferguson at a Sewer Collapse, then Held
Up a $12 Million Amendment to Company I’s Sewer Lining Contract Until
Company I Agreed to Give Ferguson $350,000
31. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, in and between about
September 2004 and December 2005, FERGUSON and KWAME KILPATRICK schemed
together in an effort to steer work to FERGUSON at a large sewer collapse at 15 Mile Road in
Sterling Heights (“the sewer collapse”). Then, from about May to December 2005, FERGUSON
and KWAME KILPATRICK, assisted by MILLER, threatened Company I and its partner that the
City would hold up a $12 million amendment to Company 1's sewer lining contract until
FERGUSON was satisfied with his financial compensation from Company I for work that
FERGUSON wanted, but did not receive, at the sewer collapse. Afler Company I agreed to give
FERGUSON an additional $350,000 for work he did not do, KWAME KILPATRICK and
MERCADO approved the $12 million amendment.
32. On or about September 1, 2004, after visiting the site of the sewer collapse,
KWAME KILPATRICK schemed with FERGUSON about how they could get FERGUSON
work at the site. FERGUSON advised KWAME KILPATRICK that although Company I would
be overseeing the overall project, Subcontractor DA had hired all the subcontractors at the site.
KWAME KJLPATRICK responded, “Perfect! That’s what I needed.” FERGUSON replied that
FERGUSON and KWAME KILPATRICK needed to meet about how FERGUSON would
“move in” given the arrangement of companies, saying, “We need to mee [meet] on how, I move
in, I got a great idea sir”.
33‘ On or about September 7, 2004, KWAME KILPATRICK asked FERGUSON
whether FERGUSON had determined his share of work at the sewer collapse. FERGUSON
-10.
10
responded that Subcontractor DA wanted to share the work with Ferguson on 50/50 basis, but
that KWAME KILPATRJCK had to instruct MERCADO about the arrangement, including that
KWAME KILPATRJCK would personally review Subcontractor DA ‘s invoices to ensure that
FERGUSON was getting his share: “just let Victor [MERCADO] know [if Subcontractor DA]
makes 2.00 fei [Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.] needs to make 2.00 also you will look at the invoices
to make sure.”
34. On or about May 3, 2005, FERGUSON told representatives of Company I that
people “Downtown” would not understand it if FERGUSON did not get sufficient revenue from
work on the sewer collapse, which might hurt Company I’s chances of obtaining a contract
amendment increasing the scope of its sewer lining contract. The representatives understood that
FERGUSON’s reference to people “Downtown” meant the Mayor’s Ofiice.
35. On or about July 27, 2005, MERCADO moved the Board of Water
Commissioners for authorization to amend Company 1‘ s sewer lining contract to increase its
scope by $1 2 million (hereafter, “the amendment").
36. In or about the Summer of 2005, at various locations in Detroit, FERGUSON
told representatives of Company I and Company Ps partner that DWSD would not authorize the
amendment if they did not pay FERGUSON $5 00,000 to $700,000, representing profits
FERGUSON claimed he should have received had he been given more work at the sewer
collapse.
37. In or about the Fall of 2005, MERCADO asked a representative of Company 1 if
the company had resolved things yet with FERGUSON.
.1].
38. In or about December 2005, at F ERGUSON’s office, FERGUSON told a
representative of Company I‘ s partner that the amendment would sit on the May0r’s desk
unapproved until FERGUSON got the compensation he wanted for the sewer collapse,
39. In or about late 2005, MILLER told a representative of Company I that
Company I had to resolve FERGUSON’s complaint about the sewer collapse.
40. On or about December 16, 2005, at a restaurant in Detroit, FERGUSON, after
conferring separately in the restaurant with MILLER, approached a representative of Company I
and demanded $350,000 for the sewer collapse. ‘
41. In or about late December 2005, Company I and Company I’ s partner agreed to
pay FERGUSON a total of $350,000 for the profits FERGUSON believed he should have
received at the sewer collapse. FERGUSON obtained these agreed payments from Company I
and Company I’s partner by exploiting their fear that KWAME KILPATRICK would continue to
hold up approval of the amendment if they did not pay FERGUSON.
42. On or about December 23, 2005, KWAME KILPATRICK and MERCADO
signed a Special Administrator Order authorizing the amendment, which called for a $12 million
increase in the scope of Company I’ s sewer lining contract.
D. Ferguson Extorted Company L out of $1.7 Million
from a $27.9 Million Sewer Outfalls Contract
43. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, in and between about
January 2004 and July 2007, FERGUSON, exploiting the fear of economic harm created by
previous actions of KWAME KILPATRICK and MERCADO, extorted Company L and its
partner out of $1.7 million in proceeds from a $27.9 million sewer outfalls contract,
.12-
FERGUSON and his companies did no work on the sewer outfalls contract in exchange for the
$1.7 million in extorted payments. 0
44. On or about January 26, 2004, while meeting with representatives of
Company L and another company about partnering on future DWSD projects, FERGUSON sent
a text message to DERRICK MILLER about the progress of the meeting, including the fact that
Company L now understood that they could not win a DWSD contract without having
FERGUSON on their team. Specifically, FERGUSON advised MILLER that the representative
of Company L “is here saying the same thing you are saying and telling them no deal without me,
he gotten smart, l am just sitting here listening.”
45. On or about April 2005, DWSD awarded Company L the outfalls contract.
Company L‘s bid identified Ferguson Enterprises as one of its subcontractors.
46. In or about July 2005, FERGUSON demanded that Company L pay him
$1 million from the revenues of the outfalls contract, plus a profit share of more than $300,000.
FERGUSON obtained these payments, despite the fact that he and his companies would not do
any work to eam the money, by exploiting Company L ‘s fear that if they did not pay him,
FERGUSON would use his influence with KWAME KILPATRICK to harm Company L’s
current and future City contracts, as he had done in the past.
47. In or about September 2005, after work had begun on the project, FERGUSON
told a representative of Company L that he wanted a 5% share, or $450,000, of
Company L's revenues arising from change orders for the following DWSD contracts:
(a) $375,000 of the revenues from a change order Company L was seeking to rehabilitate six
more outfalls; and (b) $75,000 from a change order Company L was seeking to abate asbestos at
13_
DWSD facilities, a contract in which FERGUSON had no previous involvement. FERGUSON
was able to obtain these payments, despite the fact that he and his companies would do no work
for the money, by exploiting Company L’s fear that FERGUSON would use his influence with
KWAME KILPATRICK to reject its change orders if they did not pay him. ' '
48. In or about September 2005, FERGUSON demanded that Company L
immediately give him $25,000 of the $450,000 he previously demanded. Fearing that
FERGUSON would use his influence to adversely impact Company L’s contracts, Company L
employees collected $25,000 in cash which a Company L official hand delivered to FERGUSON
that same evening at FERGUSON’s offices in Detroit, even though Company L and FERGUSON
understood that FERGUSON would do no work for the money.
49. On or about September 23, 2005, in order to conceal the payments he
demanded, FERGUSON gave Company L an invoice for $450,000 from his wife’s company,
Johnson Consulting Services, describing environmental services Johnson Consulting purportedly
provided to Company L, when FERGUSON knew Johnson Consulting had not performed, and
would not perform, any of the work described in the invoice.
50. Dun'ng the period from about October 7, 2005 to about July 18, 2007,
Company L and its property management arm paid Johnson Consulting Services and a joint
venture of Johnson Consulting Services/A & F Environmental Services a total of more than
$1.7 million from the revenues of the outfalls contract even though FERGUSON and his
affiliated companies did not perform any work for the money.
.14.
E. Kwame Kilpatrick, Ferguson, Miller and Mercado Schemed to Increase
Ferguson’s Revenues on a $19.8 Million Downtown Water Main Contract
Administered by Company D.
51. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, in or about 2003 and 2004,
KWAME KILPATRICK, FERGUSON, MILLER and MERCADO schemed together to steer
subcontracts and emergency task orders to FERGUSON in connection with a $19.8 million
downtown water main replacement contract administered by Company D. Following the
intervention into the contracting process by KWAME KILPATRICK, MILLER and MERCADO,
including giving FERGUSON downtown work originally assigned to the lowest bidder,
FERGUSON received over $4.8 million in work on the downtown water main project through
about 2007.
52. In or about June 2003, MERCADO and KWAME KILPATRICK authorized
Company D to perform design and construction oversight of the downtown water main project
under an arrangement whereby Company D would evaluate bids and provide DWSD with a
ranking of the contractors who bid to perform the work.
53. On or about October 14, 2003, FERGUSON asked KWAME KILPATRICK to
have MILLER review and approve the water main replacement work before Company D did so,
specifically asking: “is it ok , if Zeke [MILLER] review and approve the watermain replacement
work prior to victor [MERCADO] assigning a new task to his new consultant team."
54. On or about February l8, 2004, FERGUSON advised KWAME KILPATRICK
and MILLER that they needed to be part of the decision-making for the downtown water main
contracts because Company D had stopped negotiations with FERGUSON and was trying to give
the contract to one of FERGUSON’s competitors.
-15_
55. On or about March I6, 2004, KWAME KILPATRICK and FERGUSON had an
urgent meeting with MERCADO regarding the downtown water main project.
56. On or about March 18, 2004, at FERGUSON’s request, MERCADO interceded
with Company D to change the deadline of FERGUSON’s emergency water main project in
order to benefit FERGUSON.
57. On March 19, 2004, a DWSD employee accepted Company D’s
recommendation that the first round of downtown water main replacement contracts be assigned
to three City contractors who submitted the lowest bids. FERGUSON, whose bid was
45% higher than the lowest bidder, was not among these three low bidders.
58, On or about March 22, 2004, at FERGUSON’s urging, KWAME KILPATR.ICK
told MILLER to advise MERCADO that MILLER would review recommendations of
contractors for the downtown water main project before MERCADO made a final decision.
Specifically, FERGUSON told KWAME KILPATRICK, “I need Zeke [MILLER] to call victor
[MERCADO] and tell him he wants to review recommendations for the downtown contractors prior
to the final decision being made.” KWAME KILPATRICK replied, “COOL.” FERGUSON
added, “You will tell him sir, real soon they are trying to move fast, thank you not rushing the boss
just don’t won’t this to get by us.”
59. On or about March 30, 2004, FERGUSON told Klfl/AME KILPATRICK and
MILLER that MERCADO had told FERGUSON that MERCADO could not remove the lowest
bidder from the downtown water main project because the City’s purchasing ordinance
prohibited it.
-16- '
60. On or about April 1, 2004, MERCADO assured KWAME KILPATRICK that
he was trying to look for grounds to disqualify the lowest bidder and that he might look into
delaying the project.
61. In or about the Spring of 2004, MERCADO instructed Company D to give
FERGUSON the downtown water main work originally assigned to the lowest bidder. To
compensate the lowest bidder for the loss of its downtown work, a DWSD employee instructed
Company D to give the lowest bidder work at the northeast water plant, outside of the downtown
area.
62. In or between about 2004 and late December 2005, FERGUSON received more
than $4.8 million in water main work downtown, including the emergency task orders and the
downtown work originally assigned to the lowest bidder.
F. Kwnme Kilpatrick and Mercado Rigged a Water Main Contract for the East
Side of the City so Ferguson’s Team Would Win, after which Ferguson
Extorted more than $12.9 Million in Work from Other Members of the
Winning Team
63. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, between in or about the
Winter of 2006 and 2008, KWAME KILPATRICK and MERCADO rigged the evaluation and
award of a $15 million contract to improve the City’s eastside water mains so Company D, which
had not teamed with FERGUSON, would lose and Company L, which was paired with -
FERGUSON, would win the contract. After change orders increased the scope of the contract,
FERGUSON, assisted by KWAME KILPATRJCK, extorted Company L and its affiliated
company, Company/l, into giving Ferguson Enterprises and FERGUSON’s affiliated company,
Xcel Construction Services, a total of more than $12.9 million in work from the contract.
.17.
64. On or about January 25, 2006, DWSD sent out requests for proposals for the
eastside water main contract as well as a contract for improvements of water mains on the west
side of the City.
65. In or about late Winter of 2006, FERGUSON told representatives of Company L
that he would join their team’s proposal for both the eastside and westside water main contracts,
but they had to identify Company E in place of FERGUSON on their bid because FERGUSON’s
affiliated company, Xcel Construction Services, was already bidding on the same contracts in
partnership with another company. FERGUSON recruited Company E to serve as his proxy on
Company L’s bid despite the fact that Company E had a single crew which was unable to perform
the volume of work set forth in the proposal.
66. On or about March 23, 2006, Company L submitted a proposal to DWSD for
both water main contracts. At FERGUSON's direction, Company L submitted a bid which
intentionally concealed FERGUSON’s participation by listing Company E, rather than
FERGUSON, and falsely credited Company E with FERGUSON’s work experience. At the
time, FERGUSON and Company L both knew that FERGUSON would be substantially
participating in the contract if it were awarded to Company L.
67. In or about the Spring of 2006, FERGUSON reassured a representative of
Company L that he had spoken with MERCADO about the water main contracts and Company L
was in good shape.
68. On or about May 14, 2006, after bid evaluations revealed that Company L was
ranked behind Company D, a rival bidder not aligned with FERGUSON, KWAME
KILPATRICK summoned an official from the City’s Human Rights Division to the Manoogian
.13.
,
Mansion, the Mayor’s official residence. When the official arrived, KWAME KILPATRICK
turned up the volume on a television so that his conversation with the official would not be
overheard, then ordered the official to revoke the Detroit Headquartered Certification of
Company D, which would adversely impact Company D’s bid ranking. '
69. On or about May I8, 2006, pursuant to KWAME KILPATRlCK’s directive and
with MERCADO’s knowledge, the City’s Human Rights Division, contrary to its policy and
practice, revoked the Detroit Headquartered Certification of Company D without notifying
Company D or allowing them to respond or appeal, thereby eliminating Company D from
contention for the contract and improving Company L's bid position.
70. On or about May 22, 2006, at the direction of KWAME KILPATRICK, the
City‘s Human Rights Division awarded a Detroit Headquartered Certification to Company/1, a
partner in the Company L bid, thereby improving Company L’s bid position.
71. On or about May 23, 2006, at the direction of MERCADO, a DWSD employee
credited Company A with Detroit Headquartered status, improving Company L’s bid ranking.
72. On or about May 25, 2006, DWSD recommended that Company L receive the
eastside water main contract and Xcel Construction Services’ joint venture receive the westside
water main contract, thereby giving FERGUSON part of both contracts.
73. In or about the Spring of 2006, after Company L won the eastside contract,
FERGUSON told a representative of Company A, which was on Company L’s team, to pay
FERGUSON’s affiliated company Xcel Construction Services a consulting fee of $200,000, even
though Company A did not need consulting services. FERGUSON was able to make Company A
pay the fee by exploiting Company A's fear that FERGUSON would use his relationship with
.19.
KWAME KILPATRICK to harm the economic interests of Company A and Company L if they
refused to pay. I _
74. On or about August 10, 2006, MERCADO signed an acknowledgment of
contract fomi awarding Company L the eastside water main contract and Xcel Construction
Services’s joint venture the westside water main contract.
75. On or about June ll, 2007 and January 25, 2008, in response to FERGUSON’s
previous demands, Company/1 paid FERGUSON’s affiliated company, Xcel Construction
Services, a total of more than $540,000 for purported consulting and construction management
services, although Xcel did not earn this amount of money. FERGUSON was able to make
Company A pay this money by exploiting the company’s fear that FERGUSON would harm
Company/1’s business with the City if it refused to pay.
76. On or about August 29, 2008, in response to a demand from FERGUSON,
Company L paid FERGUSON’s affiliated company, Xcel Construction Services, a total of
$200,000 for purported consulting services, although Xcel did not earn this amount of money.
FERGUSON was able to make Company L pay this money by exploiting the compa.ny‘s fear that
FERGUSON would use his relationship with KWAME KILPATRICK to harm the economic
interests of Company L’s business with the City if it refused to pay.
77, After post-award change orders increased the size of the eastside contract,
Company L and Company A gave Ferguson Enterprises and Xcel Construction Services a total of
more than $12.9 million in work.
_30_
G. Ferguson Extorted Company L out of $5 million in
Work on a Sewer Repair Contract for East Side of City
78. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, between in or about June 2006
and September 2008, FERGUSON made Company L give FERGUSON more than $5_ million in
earthwork and point repair work arising out of a sewer repair contract for the east side of the City
by exploiting Company L’s fear that FERGUSON would use his relationship with KWAME
KILPATRJCK to harm Company L ‘s business interests if Company L did not give him the work.
79. On or about June 12, 2006, DWSD sent out requests for proposals for the
eastside sewer repair contract.
80. In or about the Summer of 2006, FERGUSON told representatives of
Company L that he was going to be part of their proposal to repair sewers, demanding 50% of the
work, including all the earthwork and point repair work on the project. FERGUSON instructed
Company L not to list his company, Ferguson Enterprises, on the bid proposal because another of
his companies, Xcel Construction Services, was on Company I’ s competing proposal.
FERGUSON convinced Company L to do this by exploiting Company L‘s fear that FERGUSON
would use his relationship to KWAME KILPATRICK to harm Company L’s chances of winning
the contract if they did not do so.
81. On or about August Z, 2006, Company L submitted a bid to DWSD identifying
Subcontractor DC, instead of Ferguson Enterprises, for the earthwork and point repair work.
Company L did this, at FERGUSON‘s instruction, to conceal FERGUSON’s role in the proposal
because he also was teamed up with one of the competing bidders, Company I.
-31-
82. On or about November 2, 2006, MERCADO notified Company L that DWSD
had selected it for negotiations for the eastside sewer repair contract. -
83. On or about the Winter of 2006, Company L entered into a contract with
Subcontractor DC to perform the earthwork and point repair work on the eastside sewer repair
contract because Ferguson Enterprises’ crews were busy on other City projects.
Subcontractor DC provided a performance bond and performed the work from about December
2006 to about July 2007.
84. In or about July 2007, FERGUSON had his crew bring their equipment to the
job site and kick Subcontractor DC’s crew off. Despite the fact that FERGUSON refused to sign
a contract with Company L or provide or pay for a performance bond for his work, Company L
permitted FERGUSON to take over Subcontractor DC ’s work after FERGUSON threatened to
shut the job down if Subcontractor DC did not leave the job site.
H. Ferguson Extorted Company I out of $5 million
in Sewer Repair Work on the West Side of City
85. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, between in or about June 2006
and 2008, FERGUSON caused Company I to give Ferguson Enterprises more than $5 million in
sewer repair work on the west side of the City by exploiting his relationship with KWAME
KILPATRICK and MERCADO to cause Company Ito believe they would not win the contract if
they did not agree to FERGUSON’s terms.
86. On or about June 9, 2006, at Company 1's offices, FERGUSON told Company I
representatives that Company I must enter into a joint venture with FERGUSON’s company,
Q2-
Xcel Construction Services, in order to win one of DWSD’s two upcoming contracts to
rehabilitate sewers on the east and west side of the City.
87. On or about June 12, 2006, DWSD sent out requests for proposals for the sewer
repair contracts.
88. On or about August 2, 2006, a joint venture of Company I and FERGUSON’s
affiliated company Xcel Construction Services submitted a proposal for the work, with Ferguson
Enterprises identified as a subcontractor.
89. On or about December 21, 2006, MERCADO sent Company 1 a letter of
DWSD’s intent to enter into the westside sewer repair contract with the Company 1/ Xcel joint
venture and further authorized Company I / Xcel to begin work on the contract immediately.
90. In or about December 2006, FERGUSON threatened Company I representatives
that if FERGUSON did not get paid more money, FERGUSON would hold up the westside
sewer repair contract just like he had done with the $12 million amendment to their previous
sewer lining contract. FERGUSON further threatened that he could make more money working
with Company L, which the Company I representative interpreted to mean that FERGUSON
would join Company L on future DWSD projects, meaning that Company I would not get the
work, given FERGUSON’s influence with KWAME KILPATRICK, MERCADO and DWSD.
91. In or about December 2006, fearing that FERGUSON would carry out his threat
to hold up the contract, Company I agreed to give FERGUSON nearly all of Company 1‘ s profits
from the point repair work, as well as an assured minimum profit for the overall project.
-23.
,
I C
I. Ferguson, Assisted by Miller and Mercado, Extorted Company W out of
$5 Million in Work for Ferguson on the Baby Creek I Patton Park Contract
92. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, in and between about
February 2003 and 2008, FERGUSON, assisted by KWAME KILPATRICK, MILLER and
MERCADO, caused Company Wto give Ferguson Enterprises more than $2.7 million in work at
the Baby Creek combined sewer overflow facility (“Baby Creek contract”), as well as to give
FERGUSON and his affiliated company, Xcel Construction Services, more than $2.4 million of
construction work at the neighboring Patton Park recreational facility, which was part of the
Baby Creek contract. FERGUSON obtained this work by exploiting Company W‘s fear that
FERGUSON would use his relationship with KWAME KJLPATRJCK and other members of the
Mayor’s Office to adversely impact Company W’s chances of winning the contract if they did not
do so.
93. On or about September 30, 2002, DWSD requested proposals for the Baby
Creek contract.
94. On or about February 6, 2003, Company W submitted a bid for the construction
of the Baby Creek facility. Company W was the second lowest bidder before application of
preferences given to Detroit-based and Detroit-headquartered businesses.
95. On or about February 8, 2003, MILLER told a representative from Company W
that if his company wanted to win the contract it needed to put FERGUSON on its team, even
though Company W already had agreed to hire a different subcontractor whose quotation for
excavation work was 23% lower than FERGUSON’s quotation.
.24.
96. On or about February 10, 2003, MILLER gave FERGUSON non-public
information about the bidding evaluation process, including the City's adjusted ranking of the
bidders, so that FERGUSON could use that information to his advantage in negotiations with
Company W. Specifically, FERGUSON told MILLER, “I need for you to talk [to the City
Purchasing Director], baby creek before she [announces] her decision, to give it to you first.”
MILLER replied, “I did."
97. On or about February 10, 2003, DWSD declared Company Wthe lowest
responsive equalized bidder after giving the company preference for being a Detroit-
headquartered business.
98. ‘ On or about February l4, 2003, Company W agreed with FERGUSON that if it
were awarded the Baby Creek contract, it would give FERGUSON $2.73 million in mass site
work at Baby Creek, as well as a $10 million provisionary allowance to improve the Patton Park
recreational facility.
99. On or about February I8, 2003, DWSD declared Company W the lowest
responsible bidder.
100. On or about April 8, 2003, KWAME KILPATRICK, as Special Administrator
of DWSD, signed an order awarding the contract to Company W.
I01. On or about July 1, 2003, Company W subcontracted about $2.7 million worth
of site preparation work at the Baby Creek facility to FERGUSON.
102. On or about August l 1, 2003, FERGUSON told an upper level member of the
administration that KWAME KILPATRICK had authorized DWSD and the Recreation
-35-
Department to reduce Company W's administrative fee for the construction of the Patton Park
recreation facility, enabling FERGUSON to obtain the balance for himself.
103. On or about July 2004, MERCADO directed Company W to reduce its
administrative fee for the recreation facility by about $150,000. FERGUSON or his affiliated
company, Xcel Construction Services, received more than $1.3 million in administrative fees.
104. During execution of the contract, FERGUSON threatened a representative of
Company W that FERGUSON would take matters to the “inner circle” of the City administration.
if a dispute arose with Company W. Company W thereafter gave FERGUSON a total of more
than $5 million in work on the combined sewer overflow facility and the Patton Park recreational
facility. V
J. Kwame Kilpatrick and Mercado, Assisted by Miller, Rigged the Award of a
$21 Million Security Contract to Ensure Ferguson’s Team Won, Causing
Ferguson to Receive $1.2 Million in Work
105. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, in or between about
August 14, 2003 and October 2004, KWAME KILPATRICK and MERCADO, assisted by
MILLER, rigged the evaluation and award of a contract to upgrade security systems at various
DWSD facilities (“security contract”) so FERGUSON’s team would win the contract.
MERCADO helped conceal the scheme by funneling additional work for the contract into an
unrelated contract, then misleading an inquiry authorized by a federal judge into the propriety of
the security contract. FERGUSON obtained more than $1.2 million of work on the security
contract.
.26-
106. In or about late September 2003, FERGUSON, in an effort to influence
DWSD is evaluation of bids for the security contract, advised MERCADO that FERGUSON
would be part of a joint venture that was forming to bid on the contract. L
107. On or about October 15, 2003, FERGUSON became a 15% partner in a joint
venture formed to bid on the security contract (hereafter, “F ERGUSON’s team”).
108. On or about November 3, 2003, FERGUSON’s team and Company MC
submitted competing bids for the security contract.
I09. ln or about January 2004, DWSD‘s evaluation committee advised MERCADO
that the committee had determined that Company MC was the most qualified bidder.
ll0. On or about January I3 and I4, 2004, shortly after the evaluation committee
met for the last time, KWAME KILPATRICK, MERCADO and MILLER, at FERGUSON’s
urging, strategized about how to prevent DWSD’s evaluation committee from awarding the
security contract to Company MC rather than FERGUSON’s team. Specifically, on or about
January 14, 2004, a few minutes after asking KWAME KILPATRICK whether he had spoken
with MERCADO, FERGUSON asked MILLER, “Zeke [MILLER] did you talk to victor
[MERCADO] yesterday it real important.” MILLER said “Yes.” FERGUSON replied, “Thank
you sir, we straight.” MILLER clarified, “Not yet but will be." Shortly thereafter, FERGUSON
warned MILLER, “Zeke [MILLER] its happen right now it had to be done yesterday, if you don’!
call asap its over, and [Company MC] will have won again, eng [Engineering] is send eng the
decision right now." MILLER asked, “Call whom?” FERGUSON answered, “Victor
[MERCADO]."
-27-
l ll. On or about January 27, 2004, MERCADO, contrary to DWSD practice and
against the advice of DWSD’s attorneys and staff, directed DWSD’s evaluation committee to
negotiate simultaneously with both FERGUSON’s team and Company MC for the security
contract. '
112. On or about February ll, 2004, after FERGUSON met with MERCADO, a
DWSD employee relayed MERCADO's directive to the evaluation committee that high-level
DWSD management would be taking an active role in the negotiations.
l 13. On or about February 25, 2004, MERCADO asked the Board of Water
Commissioners to allow him to conduct contract negotiations simultaneously with both
Company MC and FERGUSON’s team.
114. On or about April 19, 2004, MERCADO rejected a recommendation by the
members of DWSD’s evaluation committee to discontinue contract negotiations with
FERGUSON’s team and to proceed only with Company MC whose proposal was a better value
to DWSD. MERCADO directed his staff to reject the committee‘s recommendation on the
pretextual ground that it was contrary to the Board of Water Commissioner’s intentions, and
further directed his staff to continue to negotiate simultaneously with both FERGUSON’s team
and Company MC.
115. On or about August 5, 2004, MERCADO recommended that DWSD award the
security contract to FERGUSON's team despite the fact that its amended proposal was over
$2.4 million more than Company MC ’s proposal.
.23.
116. On or about September 22, 2004, MERCADO moved the Board of Water
Commissioners to authorize DWSD to negotiate the terms of the security contract with
FERGUSON’s team.
I 1 17. On or about October 4, 2004, KWAME KILPATRICK signed an order as
Special Administrator authorizing MERCADO to enter into the security contract with
FERGUSON‘s team.
118. In or about January 2006, after a federal judge authorized an investigation into
the appropriateness of the award of the security contract to FERGUSON’s team, MERCADO
directed his staff to find other contracts, besides the security contract, to fund an extension of the
security system to five additional water treatment plants.
I I9. In or about January 2006, MERCADO asked a City contractor to fund the
extension of the security system to the water treatment plants using extra money left over from a
separate project the contractor had completed. When the representative declined to provide the
funds in the manner MERCADO wanted, MERCADO ordered him out of his office, then
directed a DWSD employee to place an indefinite hold on change orders requested by that
contractor.
120. in or about January 2006, MERCADO persuaded a different City contractor to
submit a $3.9 million change order to DWSD for an existing pump station project, $3.1 million
of which would be used as a pass-through to fund the extension of the security system to the
water treatment plants.
121. On or about February l0, 2006, MERCADO testified at a deposition
authorized by a federal judge investigating the appropriateness of the award of the security
.29-
contract to FERGUSON’s team, given FERGUSON’s purported relationship to Mayor
KWAME KILPATRICK and the fact that FERGUSON’s team’s bid was higher. MERCADO
falsely testified that the security contract was completed on time and on budget without extras or
change orders. When asked whether he had any conversations with FERGUSON, MERCADO
testified, “Absolutely not. I don’t talk to bidders when they’re bidding.” MERCADO further
denied having any contact with members of the Mayor’s Office during the negotiations over the
security contract. As MERCADO well knew at that time, however, the security contract would
require more time and money before it was completed. In order to obscure any additional
security system costs, MERCADO, in the weeks leading up to his deposition, authorized that
additional security system work at DWSD facilities be funded out of an unrelated pump station
contract, rather than the security contract. Moreover, contrary to his deposition testimony,
MERCADO had a number of meetings and conversations with FERGUSON and MILLER at
critical stages during DWSD’s evaluation of the security contract, including with MILLER on
January 13, 2004 and with FERGUSON on February l l, 2004.
122. On or about February 27, 2006, KWAME KILPATRICK asked a federal judge
to approve a $3 .9 million change order for the pump station, the bulk of which was to be used for
the security system. Three of the other four change orders identified in KILPA'I'RICK’s letter to
the judge were to pay FERGUSON on unrelated contracts.
123. From the start of work on the security contract, until he received his last
payment on or about late June 2008, FERGUSON obtained more than $1.2 million in work on
the project.
-30-
K. . Ferguson, Assisted by Kwame Kilpatrick and Mercado, Attempted to Extort
Company W to Give Ferguson a Substantial Portion of a $140 Million
Oakwood Pump Station Contract
124. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, in and between about late
January and early February 2007, FERGUSON, with the assistance of KWAME KILPATRICIC
and MERCADO, attempted to extort Company W through fear of economic harm to give
FERGUSON a substantial portion of a $140 million DWSD contract for work on the Oakwood
pump station (“Oakwood contract"). When Company W refused. to agree to terms with
FERGUSON, the Oakwood contract was awarded instead to another team.
125. On or about January 31, 2007, about a month after DWSD requested proposals
for the Oakwood contract, FERGUSON told a Company W representative that the Mayor’s
Office wanted Company W to enter into a joint venture on the Oakwood contract with
FERGUSON and another firm. FERGUSON added that MERCADO would be contacting
Company W to discuss Company W teaming with FERGUSON.
126. On or about the morning of February 1, 2007, MERCADO called a
Company W representative and told that representative that their conversation was “just between
you and I1“ MERCADO said he understood Company W would be taking on FERGUSON as a
“mentor-partner” on the Oakwood contract, and that “if you [Company W] want go in that
direction [i.e. partnering with FERGUSON] we [DWSD] would approve it.” The representative
asked MERCADO if MERCADO’s “big guy” (KWAME KILPATRICK) had authorized the
approval. MERCADO answered “yes.”
127. On or about February 8, 2007, during a meeting with a Company W
representative, FERGUSON demanded a 35% joint venture share of Company W‘s proposal for
.31.
the Oakwood contract, warning the Company W representative, “there’s a new boy in town . . .
this isn’t like when you called somebody up with [a former Detroit Mayor] and gave him 20%
and he went away.”
" 128. On or about February 8, 2007, KWAME KILPATRICK requested that a
Company W representative meet with him at the Manoogian Mansion.
129. On or about February 8, 2007, MERCADO advised a Company W
representative that KWAME KILPATRJCK asked MERCADO to contact him “to make sure
there were no issues between" Company Wand FERGUSON.
l3O. On or about Saturday, February 10, 2007, a Company W representative met
with KWAME KILPATRICK at the Manoogian Mansion. KWAME KJLPATRICK told the
representative he wanted Company W to “play fair,” with respect to the Oakwood contract, which
the representative understood to mean that Company W needed to partner with FERGUSON.
131. In or about March 2007, FERGUSON rejected Company W‘s offer of a
15% share of the Oakwood contract because FERGUSON refused to share a corresponding
percentage of risk of loss on the project.
1&2. On or about MARCH 21, 2000, KWAME KILPATRICK ( instructed a nwso
employee to postpone the bid deadline by one week so that a high-level aide to KWAME
KILPATRICK could meet in person with a Company W representative in an effort to work out a
joint venture between Company Wand FERGUSON.
133. In or about March 2007, Company W declined to partner with FERGUSON
after FERGUSON again refused to share a risk of loss equaling his share of the project.
.32.
134. In or about April 2007, DWSD awarded the Oakwood Contract to a rival
bidder rather than to Company W.
L. Attempt to Find in Replacement for Mercado
135. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, in or about the Winter
of 2008, after MERCADO had announced that he was going to leave his post as DWSD Director,
KWAME KILPATRICK confidentially asked an official at the Buildings & Safety Engineering
Department (“B&SE”) to take the job of DWSD Director, even though that official did not have
the training or experience for the job. KWAME KILPATRICK made the offer in the hope that
the B&SE official would take over MERCADO’s role of steering DWSD contracts and funds to
FERGUSON through extortion and contract rigging.
136. In or about the Winter of 2003, shortly after KWAME KILPATRICK‘s
confidential job offer to the B&SE official, FERGUSON invited that official to FERGUSON’s
offices where FERGUSON urged the official to take the job of DWSD Director, saying that if he
did, FERGUSON and the official could make over a million dollars for KWAME KILPATRICK
in two weeks.
M. Kwame Kilpatrick Attempted to Get Ferguson the Tiger Stadium Demolition
137. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, in or between about
February to April 2008, KWAME KILPATRICK used his position as Mayor of Detroit in an
attempt to coerce an official of the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation (“DEGC”) to
recommend that FERGUSON get the contract to demolish Tiger Stadium in Detroit, even though
FERGUSON was not the low bidder. When the DEGC official refused, KWAME
KILPATRICK tried to retaliate against the official by having him removed from his position.
-33-
I38. On or about November 30, 2007, a joint venture which included Ferguson
Enterprises (hereafter, “FERGUSON’s joint venture”) submitted a bid to the City of Detroit
Economic Development Corporation ("EDC") to demolish Tiger Staditun in Detroit.
I39. In or about late February or early March 2008, KWAME KILPATRICK
contacted a DEGC official who was helping the EDC evaluate the bids, telling him that
KWAME KILPATRICK wanted FERGUSON’s joint venture to win the demolition contract.
140. On or about April 21, 2008, KWAME KJLPATRICK expressed his concern
and unhappiness to the DEGC official after learning that the EDC"s staff had recommended that
the EDC negotiate a contract with a different demolition team whose bid was $300,000 lower
than FERGUSON’s joint venture. KWAME KILPATRICK instructed the DEGC official to
delay submitting the recommendation to the EDC board so KWAME KILPATRICK could have
an official at the Building & Safety Engineering Department (who served at KWAME
KILPATRICK’s pleasure) review the recommendation. The DEGC official declined to delay the
board’s vote.
141. On or about April 30, 2008, alter the EDC board unanimously voted to award
the contract to the low bidder, rather than the FERGUSON joint venture, a high—level official
from the Mayor’s Office, at KWAME KILPATRICK‘s direction, called the DEGC official to
warn him that he had made a bad decision, that he was not a team player, and that from now on
the Mayor's Office would review all staff recommendations before they were given to the board.
142. On or about April 30, 2008, KWAME KILPATRICK, who was upset with the
DEGC official in part for not recommending that the FERGUSON joint venture receive the Tiger
.34..
Stadium demolition contract, sent his Chief of Staff, Kandia Milton, to the office of the DEGC
official to ask for his resignation. The DEGC official declined to resign.
N. Kwame Kilpatrick Attempted to Get Ferguson
Demolition Work at the Book Cadillac Hotel
I43. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, from in or about the Spring
of 2003 to the Spring of 2004, KWAME KTLPATRJCK and FERGUSON schemed together in
an attempt to ensure that FERGUSON would receive a multi-million dollar subcontract to
conduct the interior demolition and hazardous material abatement as part of the renovation of the
Book Cadillac Hotel in Detroit, which was overseen and partly funded by departments and
agencies affiliated with the City, including the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation (“DEGC”)
and the Downtown Development Authority (“DDA”).
I44. On or about March 31, 2003, FERGUSON told KWAME KILPATRICK that
the Construction Management Firm overseeing the renovation of the Book Cadillac wanted to
subcontract with a demolition company other than FERGUSON for the interior demolition of the
hotel. FERGUSON reassured KWAME KILPATRICK, however, that a City official had
arranged for FERGUSON to accompany that official to an event attended by the Construction
Management Firm to let the Construction Management Firm know how close FERGUSON was
to the City Administration. KWAME KILPATRICK replied, “COOL!”
I45. On or about April ll, 2003, FERGUSON Warned KWAME KILPATRICK
that the Construction Management Firm still wanted to hire another subcontractor for the Book
Cadillac demolition work. KWAME KILPATRICK replied, “Let's go to work” and they
arranged to meet that afternoon to discuss the matter further.
.3 5-
146. On or about April 17, 2003, FERGUSON advised KWAME KILPATRICK,
“I NEED YOUR HELP” before a meeting on the Book Cadillac project.
147. In or about the Spring of 2003, while attending a Detroit Red Wings game in a
suite at the Joe Louis Arena in Detroit with representatives of the Construction Management
Firm, KWAME KILPATRICK brought FERGUSON into the suite, introduced him to a
Construction Management Firm representative, then explained that FERGUSON was his
“friend” and would be “good” for the Book Cadillac project. The Construction Management
Firm representative believed that KWAME KILPATRICK was pressuring his fim1 to hire
FERGUSON or risk adverse consequences to the Construction Management Firm’s future
business prospects in the City.
I48. On or about April 25, 2003, FERGUSON was awarded the Book Cadillac
demolition subcontract.
I49. On or about May 7, 2003, the DDA board approved the selection of the
developer for the Book Cadillac renovation.
150. On or about January 13, 2004, FERGUSON told KWAME KILPATRICK that
the developer had discontinued work on the Book Cadillac development, leaving FERGUSON
with money in the project that he needed to recoup. FERGUSON stated, “Is over, . . . l have over
$300,000.00 out of my pockets cash money tied up in this job.” KWAME KILPATRICK
reassured FERGUSON that they would find another developer to take over the project, “Its not
over! We WILL have a deal. If [the developer] doesn't do it, we have another Company that
will." FERGUSON said, “Cool, I need to recoup what I spent so far”. KWAME KJLPATRICK
replied, “NO QUESTION!"
-3 6-
I51. On or about May 17, 2004, while discussing the Book Cadillac project,
FERGUSON told K9/AME KILPATRJCK that because of KWAME IGLPATRICK, “I am
famous now. just need to get some money." KWAME KILPATRICK agreed, “L01! Right.
Let's get you some [i.e., m0ney].” FERGUSON corrected KWAME KILPATRICK, saying,
Us.
II. DEFRAUDING THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AND DONORS TO NONPROFITS
OF MONIES MEANT TO HELP THE COMMUNITY OR TO FUND CAMPAIGN
EXPENSES
I52. As set forth more fully in this section, below, beginning in or about 1999, and
continuing until 2009, KWAME KILPATRICK, FERGUSON and BERNARD KJLPATRICK,
assisted by other members of the Enterprise, obtained monies from the State of Michigan, as well
as from donors to nonprofit entities they controlled, including the Kilpatrick Civic Fund,
Kilpatrick for Mayor and the Kilpatrick Inaugural Committee, under the false pretense that such
monies would be used for purposes consistent with bettering the community or for campaign
expenses when, in truth and in fact, these monies were used for personal or otherwise
impermissible expenses of members of the Kilpatrick Enterprise. KWAME KILPATRICK,
FERGUSON and BERNARD KILPATRICK executed their pattern of fraud, in part, by causing
items to be delivered by U.S. mail or interstate carrier or by transmitting information by means of
wire communication in interstate commerce. The total amount of money obtained by fraud from
the State of Michigan and donors to nonprofits was over $650,000.
.37.
A. Kwame Kilpatrick and Ferguson Defrauded the State of Michigan
of Over $280,000 In Grant Monies Meant to Help the Community
153. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, in and between 2000
and 2002, KWAME KILPATRICK, while a member of the State House of Representatives and
with the assistance of FERGUSON, committed fraud on the State of Michigan by directing over
$280,000 in grant money from the State of Michigan to nonprofit entities controlled by KWAME
KILPATRlCK’s wife and FERGUSON. The State grant money, which was supposed to help
children and seniors in the Detroit area, was spent in large part by KWAME KILPATRICK or his
wife on personal expenses and by FERGUSON to refurbish the offices of Ferguson Enterprises
on Wyoming Avenue in Detroit.
154. ln or about 2000, KWAME KILPATRICK, using his position as Democratic
Floor Leader in the Michigan House of Representatives, agreed to support a proposed budget for
the State of Michigan on condition that the State Budget Office award Arts, Cultural and Quality
of Life grants (“State grants”), as follows: a $500,000 grant to Detroit Three Dimensional
Community Development Corporation (“Detroit 3D”), a purported non-profit entity controlled by
FERGUSON; and a $300,000 grant to another Detroit-based nonprofit (“Nonprofit V”).
155. On or about June 22, 2000, KWAME KILPATRICK, acting as a member of
the Michigan House of Representatives, sent a letter to the State Budget Office supporting the
award of State grants to Detroit 3D and Nonprofit I/4
156. On or about June 30, 2000, KWAME KILPATRICK caused an application
from Detroit 3D to be sent to the State Budget Office seeking a $500,000 State grant to help
children and senior citizens. In or about August 2000, KWAME KILPATRICK asked a
-3 8..
representative of Nonprofit to hire KWAME KILPATRICK’s wife using some of the State
grant funds awarded to Nonprofit V.
157. On or about October 2, 2000, the State of Michigan mailed a $250,000 check
to Detroit 3D and a $150,000 check to Nonprofit V, equaling half of their respective State grants.
I58. On or about October 12, 2000, unbeknownst to the State Budget Office or the
Michigan legislature, Nonprofit V gave $37,500 of its State grant to a for-profit company
controlled by KILPATRICICB wife called “Using Nonviolence to Influence Total Education,
Inc.” (“U.N.l.T.E.”), for peer mediation classes for children, which services were never provided
I59. On or about December I5, 2000, unbeknownst to the State Budget Office or
the Michigan legislature, Detroit 3D gave $100,000 of its State grant to U.N.I.T,E.
I60. Between October 2000 and April 2002, most of the $137,500 in State grant
money given to U.N.I.T.E. was used for personal expenses for KWAME KILPATRICK and his
wife, including $91,000 in salary to his wife, which, as KWAME KILPATRICK well knew at
that time, was contrary to the purpose of the grant.
l6l. In or about the Spring of 2001, KWAME KILPATRICK complained to a
representative of the State Budget Office that the State wanted too much detail from Detroit 3D
and Nonprofit V about how they spent the State grant money.
I62. In or about the Spring of 2001, MILLER met with a representative of the State
Budget Office to help Detroit 3D and Nonprofit V get the second half of their State grants.
163. In or about the Summer of 2001, FERGUSON used about $100,000 of Detroit
3D’s State grant money to renovate his company offices and to repair his company’s roof top air
.39-
conditioning units, which, as FERGUSON knew at the time, was contrary to the purpose of the
grant. l
164. On or about June 11, 2001, a letter signed by FERGUSON’s wife was sent to
the State Budget Office asking for the second half of the State grant to Detroit 3D. ‘
165. On or about January 15, 2002, a letter signed by FERGUSON’s wife was sent
to the State Budget Office claiming that Detroit 3D spent the first half of its State grant to
renovate a dwelling in Detroit for displaced seniors and runaway youth, when in truth and fact, as
FERGUSON knew at the time, the renovations were made at Ferguson Enterprises’ facility.
B. Kwame Kilpatrick Defrauded Donors to Kilpatrick for Mayor, the '
Kilpatrick Inaugural Committee and Other Kilpatrick-Related Nonprofits
by Taking Cash Kickbacks of Over $286,000 from His Fundraising Director
166. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, in and between August 2003
and May 2008, KWAME KILPATRICK, assisted by a person employed to fund raise for his
nonprofits (the “Fundraiser "), caused solicitations for donations to be sent by U.S. mail to
potential donors to Kilpatrick for Mayor (KWAME KILPATRICK’s campaign fund), the
Kilpatrick Inaugural Committee (a fund to pay for KWAME KILPATR1CK’s inaugural
ceremonies) and the Kilpatrick Civic Fund (KWAME KILPATRICK’s social welfare nonprofit).
During this same time period, KWAME KILPATRICK and the Fundraiser received donations to
these entities by U.S. mail. KWAME KILPATRICK and the Fundraiser represented to donors
that their donations would be used for the purposes of these nonprofits, i.e., that the donations to
Kilpatrick For Mayor would be used for KWAME KILPATRICK’s mayoral campaigns,
donations to the Kilpatrick Inaugural Committee would be used to pay for KWAME
KILPATRICK‘s inaugural ceremonies and donations to the Kilpatrick Civic Fund would be used
-40~ '
' Q .
for social welfare causes. KWAME KILPATRICK and the Fundraiser never told any of the
donors that KWAME KILPATRICK would be taking cash kickbacks from the commissions paid
to the Fundraiser by the nonprofit entities. The cash kickbacks taken by KWAME
KILPATRICK totaled over $286,000. _
167. On or about August 6, 2003, KWAME KILPATRICK told the Fundraiser that
he wanted her to give him a portion of the commissions she received for her fund raising efforts.
Thereafter, from about August 6, 2003 to about May 8, 2008, at KWAME KILPATRICI(’s
direction, the Fundraiser met with KWAME KILPATRICK to give him the following amounts
of cash, representing his personal “share” of her commission checks:
Par. No. | Date | Non-Profit | Cash to Kilpatrick
1
168. 8/6/03
Kilpatrick for Mayor
$50,000.00
169. 12/11/03
Kilpatrick for Mayor
$5,000.00
170. 1/23/04
Kilpatrick for Mayor
$7,500.00
171 . 08/26/04
Kilpatrick for Mayor
$40,000.00
I72. 5/18/05
Kilpatrick for Mayor
$5,000.00
173. 8/29/05
Kilpatrick for Mayor
$2,000.00
174. 1/17/06
Kilpatrick Inaugural Committee
$25,000.00
175. 2/7/06
Kilpatrick Inaugural Committee
$20,000.00
176. 3/17/06
Kilpatrick Inaugural Committee
$5,000.00
177. 6/8/06
Kilpatrick for Mayor
$30,000.00
178. 5/4/07
Kilpatrick Inaugural Committee
$20,000.00
179. 7/6/07
Kilpatrick Inaugural Committee
$10,000.00
+ 180. 9/20/07
Kilpatrick Civic Fund ~
$7,000.00
181. I2/l8/07
Kilpatrick for Mayor
$25,000.00
182. 12/26/07 Kilpatrick Civic Fund $15,000.00
I83, 4/17/08 Kilpatrick for Mayor $10,000.00
184. 5/8/08 Kilpatrick for Mayor $10,000.00
r ml Y
C. Kwame Kilpatrick, With the Assistance of Members of the Kilpatrick
Enterprise, Defrauded Donors to the Kilpatrick Civic Fund by Using Civic
Fund Monies for Personal and Campaign Expenses
185. Beginning in or about 1999, and continuing until at least February of 2009, as
explained in further detail in Counts 16 through 28 below, which is incorporated by reference
herein, KWAME KILPATRICK, assisted by other members of the Kilpatrick Enterprise,
committed mail and wire fraud on donors to the Kilpatrick Civic Fund, a social welfare
organization, by using donated monies for personal and political expenses. At least $159,000 in
Civic Fund monies were used by KWAME KILPATRICK on personal expenses.
III. BRIBERY AND ACQUISITION OF MONEY AND PROPERTY UNDER
COLOR OF OFFICIAL RIGHT AND BY FEAR OF ECONOMIC HARM
l86. As set forth more fully in this section, below, during the course of the
conspiracy, Enterprise members KWAME KILPATRJCK, BERNARD KILPATRJCK,
DERRICK MILLER and other associates and City officials solicited and accepted payments and
property from individuals seeking business with the City or its General Retirement System or
Police and Fire pension funds. These items of value, which totaled more than $1.2 million, were
obtained by making wrongful use of KWAME KILPATRICK’s mayoral office as they were
items not due to KWAME KILPATRICK or BERNARD KILPATRICK, and they knew when
.42.
they received the items that they were given in return for official acts and favorable treatment by
KWAME KILPATRICK as Mayor of the City. In addition, KWAME KILPATRICK and
BERNARD KILPATRICK also obtained items from some of these same individuals through the
fear of economic harm. '
A. Kwame Kilpatrick, Bernard Kilpatrick and Miller Solicited and
Task Bribes Totaling at Least $360,000 From Cobo Contractor Karl Kado;
Bernard Kilpatrick Attempted to Extort Kado
187. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, from in or about 2001
to 2005, KWAME KJLPATRICK, BERNARD KILPATRICK and MILLER solicited and took
bribes of at least $360,000 in cash from Cobo Civic Center contractor Karl Kado for favorable
treatment on millions of dollars in Cobo service contracts sought or held by Kado. Moreover, in
about 2008, BERNARD KILPATRICK attempted to extort Kado out of a percentage of money
the City owed Kado for work performed at the City’s Department of Administrative Hearings
Buiding
188. In and between about 2001 and 2002, KWAME KILPATRICK obtained a
number of cash payments totaling at least $80,000 from Kado, knowing that, in return, Kado
expected to receive favorable treatment on service contracts Kado sought or held at Cobo Hall.
189. In or about 2001, MILLER obtained $10,000 cash from Kado at the request of
KWAME KILPATRICK.
190. In or about 2001, MILLER obtained $10,000 cash from Kado knowing that, in
return, Kado expected to receive favorable treatment on contracts Kado sought or held at Cobo
Hall.
.43-
I91. Early in the administration of Mayor Kilpatrick, MILLER obtained another
$10,000 cash from Kado, knowing that in return, Kado expected to receive favorable treatment
on contracts Kado sought or held at Cobo Hall. V
I92. In and between about 2002 and 2005, BERNARD KILPATRICK obtained a “
number of cash payments totaling at least $250,000 from Kado knowing that, in return, Kado
expected to receive favorable treatment from the City on contracts Kado sought or held at Cobo
Hall. The payments included a single cash payment of $100,000 in 2005.
I93. In or about April 2002, KWAME KILPATRICK and MILLER agreed to assign
the exclusive Cobo Hall cleaning contract to Kado’s company, Metro Services Organization, Inc.
(“MSO”).
I94. On or about April 17, 2002, BERNARD KILPATRICK told MILLER to
instruct Lou Pavledes, director of the Cobo Civic Center, to award the Cobo Hall electrical
contract to Kado, saying, “LAST THING (FOR TODAY) YOU HAVE TO CALL LOU
[Pavledes] AND GIVE O.K.FOR KARL [Kado] TO DEAL WITH THE ELECTRICAL
CONTRACT IN JUNE."
I95. On or about April 24, 2002, BERNARD KILPATRICK reminded MILLER to
call Pavledes to award the Cobo electrical contract to Kado, adding that MILLER should do it
exactly like they did it for Kado’s cleaning/maintenance contract at Cobo: “ITS TIME TO CALL
LOU [Pavledes] ON THE CARL [Kado] DEAL..EXACTLY LIKE THE MAINTENANCE.”
196. On or about January 25 and 28, 2003, and February 2, 2003, BERNARD
KILPATRICK prodded MILLER to complete the Cobo Hall electrical services contract with
Kado.
.44-
197. On or about February 5, 2003, KWAME KILPATRJCK and MILLER agreed
to assign the exclusive electrical contract for Cobo Hall to MSO. KWAME KILPATRICK and
vb
MILLER later agreed to extend MSO’s electrical contract until December 20, 2006.
198. In or about mid and late January 2004, KWAME KILPATRICK called Kado
on the telephone.
199. On or about February 4, 2004, KWAME KILPAT RICK and MILLER agreed
to a $600,000 annual increase of MSO’s cleaning contract at Cobo Hall.
200. On or about July 18, 2005, KWAME KILPATRICK and MILLER agreed to a
$1.75 million increase of MSO's cleaning contract at Cobo Hall.
201. In or about September 2005, shortly after Kado showed BERNARD
KILPAT RICK a letter indicating that Kado was the target of a federal investigation, BERNARD
KILPATRICK told Kado that the Kilpatrick Administration was ready to give Kado ten more
years of Cobo service contracts if Kado agreed to “work with" the Administration.
202. On or about January ll, 2006, KWAME KILPATRICK and MILLER agreed
to extend MSO’s cleaning contract at Cobo Hall until December 20, 2006.
203. In or about the Winter of 2008, BERNARD KILPATRICK told an official at
the City of Detroit Buildings & Safety Engineering Department to authorize payments to Kado
for work Kado performed at the City’s Department of Administrative Hearings Building.
BERNARD KILPATRICK told the official that he wanted the City to pay Kado so BERNARD
KILPATRICK could get paid.
204. On or about March l, 2008, at a Detroit restaurant, BERNARD KILPATRICK
attempted to extort payments from Kado if he did not pay BERNARD KILPATRICK 10% of the
. -45-
money the City owed Kado for the Administrative Hearings Building. BERNARD
KILPATRICK told Kado, “You don’t even wanna pay me, huh? . . . It would take you two years
to go through lawyers to get your money, man." After Kado declined to pay BERNARD
KILPATRICK, the City did not pay Kado.
B. Kwame Kilpatrick and Bernard Kilpatrick Solicited and Took Bribes of
Over $500,000 From Jon Rutherford, Who Sought a Casino Development
205. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, KWAME KILPATRICK and
BERNARD KILPATRICK solicited and took more than $500,000 in cash, non-profit donations
and campaign-related payments from Jon Rutherford in return for the support of KWAME
KILPATRICK, MILLER and other officials in the Mayor’s Office for Rutherford‘s riverfront
casino development plan.
206. On or about September 19 and 27, 2000, Rutherford gave checks totaling about
$100,000 to an entity associated with the Michigan Democratic Party to assist KWAME
KILPATRJCK in becoming the Democratic leader in the State House of Representatives.
207. In or about October 2000, Rutherford gave $23,000 to a television and radio
political analyst to support KWAME KILPATRICK’s mayoral campaign.
208. On or about October 19, 2000, Rutherford gave $40,000 to the Kilpatrick Civic
Fund as a way to fund KWAME KILPATRICK’s mayoral campaign. '
209. On or about May 2, 2001, Rutherford gave $20,000 to the Kilpatrick Civic
Fund as a way to fund KWAME KILPATRICK’s mayoral campaign.
210. On or about June 6, 2001, Rutherford gave $34,000 to Next Generation
Detroit, a political action committee controlled by KWAME KILPATRICK.
-46-
_
I O
2| l. On or about June 6, 2001, Rutherford gave $34,000 to the Detroit Ecumenical
Minister Alliance on behalf of KWAME KILPATRICK.
212. On or about July 2, 2001, Rutherford gave $30,000 to the Kilpatrick Civic
Fund as a way to fund KWAME KILPATRICK’s mayoral campaign.
213. On or about October 25, 2001, Rutherford gave $3,000 to Kilpatrick for
Mayor.
214. Between October 26, 2001 and November 6, 2001 (election day), Rutherford
provided four checks totaling $97,275 to Community Coalition to pay for costs associated with
KWAME Kilpatrick’s mayoral campaign.
215. On or about November 6, 2001, at the request of BERNARD KILPATRICK,
Rutherford gave $20,000 to BERNARD KILPATRICK for KWAME KILPAT'R.ICK’s campaign
expenses, including paying poll workers.
216. In or about 2001, during KWAME KILPATRlCK’s campaign for mayor and
after KWAME KILPATRICK was elected mayor, Rutherford told KWAME KILPATRICK
about his plan to develop a casino on the Detroit river front. KWAME KILPATRICK agreed to
support this plan.
217. On or about November 17, 2001, in Las Vegas, Rutherford gave KWAME and
BERNARD KILPATRICK tickets worth $2,400 to a heavyweight boxing match.
218. Between about June 4, 2002 and March 7, 2003, as KWAME KILPATRICK
well knew, Rutherford paid BERNARD KILPATRICK between $5,000 and $15,000 per month
for purported consulting services, almost none of which BERNARD KILPATRICK actually
-47.
performed. The total amount Rutherford paid BERNARD KILPATRICK during this time period
was more than $130,000. A
219. In or about the Spring of 2002, in Les Vegas, KWAME KILPATRICK asked
Rutherford for $5,000 cash; which Rutherford gave to him.
220. In or about May 2002, KWAME KILPATRJCK asked Rutherford for $10,000
cash so that KWAME KILPATRICK would have spending money when he visited the United
Arab Emirates. Rutherford provided the cash to KWAME KILPATRICK.
221. On or about October 22, 2002, at BERNARD KILPATRlCK’s request,
Rutherford gave $5,000 to the Next Vision Foundation, a nonprofit run by KWAME
KILPATRlCK’s sister. BERNARD KILPATRICK advised KWAME KILPAT RICK of this
contribution.
222. In or about 2004, Rutherford gave KWAME KILPATRICK at least $10,000 in
cash, which KWAME KHJ’ATRICK said he needed to support a plan to elect City Council
members by geographic districts.
223. Between about 2002 and 2005, KWAME KILPATRICK and MILLER took a
number of official actions to further Rutherford’s river front casino development deal, either
personally or through other representatives of the KILPATRICK administration, including
attending meetings with architects, casino executives and members of the Detroit City Council
and the Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority, at which KILPATRICK, MILLER or other
mayoral representatives discussed the logistics of Rutherford’s river front casino plan and
expressed that the Mayor‘s Office supported the plan.
.43.
C. Kwame Kilpatrick, Bernard Kilpatrick and Miller Solicited and Took
Money, Private Jet Flights and Entertainment Expenses Worth at least
$100,000 from James Rosendall; Bernard Kilpatrick Attempted to Extort
Rosendall for $5,000
p224. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, from about 2001 to
about 2008, KWAME KILPATRICK, BERNARD KILPATRJCK and MILLER solicited and
took KILPATRICK’s money, private jet flights, entertainment expenses and donations to KWAME
KILPATRICK’s non-profits and political entities worth more than $100,000 from
James Rosendall, an executive of Company S, in exchange for the support of KWAME
KILPATRICK, MILLER and other members of the Mayor’s Office for a $47 million per year
sewage sludge disposal contract (the “sludge contract”). In about 2008, BERNARD
KILPATRICK attempted to extort about $5,000 from Rosendall by threatening to “kill” the
sludge contract if he was not paid.
225. In or about mid-2001, in a house near the State Capital in Lansing, Rosendall
told KWAME KILPATRICK that Company S wanted to take over the contract the City had
entered with another company to handle its wastewater sludge, then gave KWAME
KILPATRICK and an aide three bundled campaign checks totaling more than $10,000 for
KWAME KILPATRICK’s campaign for Mayor.
226. In about late 2002, KWAME KILPATRICK met Rosendall in a hotel suite in
Grand Rapids, Michigan and instructed Rosendall to work with KILPATRICK’s aide, MILLER,
on the sludge contract.
.49.
227. In or about March 2003, Company S submitted a proposal to DWSD to revise
an existing waste disposal and hauling contract between DWSD and another company with the
intent that Company S would take over the sludge contract.
228. In or about early 2003, at a fund raiser at the Manoogian Mansion, KWAME
KILPATRICK introduced Rosendall to BERNARD KILPATRICK, telling Rosendall he wanted
Rosendall to work with BERNARD KILPATRICK on the sludge contract. Rosendall understood
this to mean that KWAME KILPATRICK wanted Rosendall to hire BERNARD KILPATRICK.
229. In or about early 2003, shortly after the fund raiser at the Manoogian Mansion,
BERNARD KILPATRICK introduced Rosendall to Rayford Jackson, explaining that Jackson
would be Rosendall’s point of contact in the sludge deal. Thereafter, BERNARD KILPATRICK
spent little time helping to obtain the approval of the DWSD or the Detroit City Council for the
sludge contract, although he periodically would ask Rosendall for money, including requests for
“loans,” totaling at least $25,000, which were never repaid.
230. From about 2003 to 2007, acting on the instructions of KWAME
KILPATRICK, City officials including MILLER and Kandia Milton lobbied the DWSD and the
Detroit City Council to support the sludge contract. This included resolving financial, liability,
environmental and regulatory issues.
231‘. In or about 2003 or 2004, MERCADO declined to open the sludge contract to
competitive bidding despite a request to do so by DWSD staff involved in the negotiation of the
contract.
232. In or about the Fall of 2003, Rosendall chartered a private jet costing more
than $19,000 to take KWAME KILPATRICK, MILLER and several of their associates to Las
.50.
I I
Vegas over the weekend of September 12, 2003. Rosendall spent more than $2,000 entertaining
the group while in Las Vegas. Neither KJLPATRICK, MILLER, nor their associates reimbursed
Rosendall for the flight or the other expenses.
233. In or about the Spring of 2004, Rosendall chartered a private jet costing more
than $15,000 to take MILLER and several of his associates to Las Vegas over the weekend of
April 2, 2004. Rosendall spent more than $4,000 for food, lodging and entertainment for the
group while in Las Vegas. Neither MILLER nor his associates reimbursed Rosendall for the
flight or the other expenses.
234. On or about October 31, 2005, Rosendall wrote a check for $7,500 to the
Kilpatrick Civic Fund. ‘
235. On or about November 1 1, 2005, Rosendall wrote a check for $10,000 to
Generations PAC, KWAME KILPATRICK‘s political action committee.
236. On or about January 3, 2006, Rosendall wrote a check for $5,000 to the
Kilpatrick Inaugural Committee. I
237. On or about February 13, 2006, at BERNARD KILPATRICK’s request,
Rosendall gave BERNARD KILPATRICK $5,000 as a purported loan, which was never repaid.
238. On or about August 18, 2006, at BERNARD KILPATRICK’s request,
Rosendall gave BERNARD KILPATRICK a $5,000 check, labeled as a loan, which was never
repaid.
239. In or about 2006, BERNARD KILPATRICK advised Rosendall that
BERNARD KILPATRICK had an agreement with Rayford Jackson giving BERNARD
-51-
KILPATRICK 50% of all proceeds Jackson received from the sludge contract, totaling about
$1 million over three years.
240. In or about 2006, BERNARD KILPATRICK introduced Rosendall to
BERNARD KILPATRlCK’s girlfriend, saying she would be in charge of recruiting and hiring
minority contractors to help build and operate the sludge processing facility. BERNARD
KILPATRICK instructed Rosendall that his girlfriend, rather than BERNARD KJLPATRICK,
should be named in any Company S contracts involving BERNARD KILPATRICK to conceal
BERNARD KILPATRICK’s role.
24]. On or about May 19, 2007, Rosendall wrote a check for $3,400 to Kilpatrick
for Mayor.
242. In or about June 2007, Rosendall chartered a private plane to return KWAME
KILPATRICK and BERNARD KILPATRJCK to Detroit from Mackinac Island. Rosendall was
not reimbursed for the flight.
243. In or about June 2007, DWSD approved the contract with Company S.
244. On or about September 26, 2007, BERNARD KILPATRICK told Kandia
Milton that he would see if he could make it MERCADO’s “urgency” to complete the sludge
deaL
245. On or about November 27, 2007, KWAME KILPATRICK signed a resolution
approving the sludge contract, valued at about $47 million per year, with a 25-year term.
246. On or about December 4, 2007, BERNARD KILPATRICK and his girlfriend
met Rosendall at a restaurant in Birmingham, at which time BERNARD KJLPATRICK
explained that he had an unwritten agreement with Rayford Jackson that any profits Jackson
.52-
I V".
derived from the sludge contract would be split as follows: 45% to BERNARD KILPATRICK,
45% to Jackson and 10% to BERNARD KILPATRICK’s girlfriend, with the payment to
BERNARD KILPATRICK structured through his girlfriend to conceal BERNARD
KILPATRJCK’ s interest.
247. On or about December 20, 2007, in a parking lot in Detroit, BERNARD
KILPATRICK attempted to extort Rosendall, threatening him that “we” would “kill” the sludge
contract if BERNARD KILPATRICK was not compensated to his satisfaction. Rosendall gave
BERNARD KILPATRICK about $300 in cash, hidden in a pack of chewing gum, in an effort to
temporarily pacify him.
248. On or about March 5, 2008, outside BERNARD KILPATRICK’s residence in
Detroit, BERNARD KILPATRICK held up five fingers, indicating he wanted Rosendall to give
him $5,000. Later that day, BERNARD KILPATRICK took $2,500 in cash from Rosendall,
saying he was “the one guy that made [the sludge contract] happen" and confirming that if he
had not been paid, he would have told KWAME KILPATRICK, “Do what you can to stop it [the
sludge contract] for a year. Stop it for two years.”
249. On or about April 16, 2008, in a restaurant parking lot in Southfield,
BERNARD KILPATRICK took $2,500 in cash from Rosendall in connection with the sludge
contract.
_53_
D. Kwame Kilpatrick Solicited and Took Private Jet Flights Worth Over
$300,000 From a Representative of Company I
250. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, from about August 2003 to
January 2008, KWAME KILPATRICK requested the use of the private jets of a representative of
Company Ion at least eighteen occasions for the personal use of KWAME KILPATRICK and
his friends and family, including BOBBY FERGUSON and BERNARD KILPATRICK, without
reimbursing the representative. The representative provided this free private jet service, worth
over $260,000, in part so KWAME KILPATRICK and the Mayor’s Office would not harm the
representative’s business interests in the City, including Company 1.
251. In or about 2006, after KWAME KILPATRICK had used the private jets a
number of times, the representative of Company 1 asked KILPATRICK if he thought he should
start paying for some of the flights because “it did not look good" for the representative to
provide the flights for free. KILPATRICK said he would see about it but never otherwise
responded to the representative of Company I .
252. In or about 2006, one of the representative’s employees suggested to a high-
level member of the Mayor’s administration that they consider setting up a nonprofit entity which
could receive donations to pay for KWAME KILPATRICK’s flights. The City official said they
were not interested in doing this.
253. The representative of Company I continued to pay for KWAME
KILPATRICK’s flights in part because he knew KWAME KILPATRJCK could adversely impact
his businesses in the City if he refused. The flights, having a fair market value to KWAME
-54-
KILPATRICK of more than $260,000 and an added variable cost to the representative of more
than $120,000, were as follows:
Par. No. 1
254.
2/25/04
[O
2/28/04
Washington,
D.C.
2 4 $4,473.59
I i‘ 1‘/,”"~'=':" -:11
$7 7
, 50.00
255.
4/12/04
I0
4/16/04
Orlando
2 8 $8,947.19
$ 1 l ,760.00
256.
7/24/04
to
7/25/04
East Hamptons
Boston
2 3 $3,890.08
$ 1 0,466.00
257.
10/15/04
to
10/16/04
Houston
2 6 $10,114.20
$14,659.00
258.
5/19/05
Cleveland
2 9 $1,167.02
$2,025.00
259.
5/27/05
10
5/28/05
Greensboro,
NC
2 l $4,279.08
$6,160.00
260.
7/7/06 to
7/8/06
Houston
2 2 $9,919.70
$16,919.00
261.
8/2/06 10
8/6/06
Bermuda
3 9 $11,281.23
$20,382.00
262.
10/27/06
I0
10/2 8/06
Tallahassee
2 3 $7,974.66
$10,480.00
263.
4/12/07,
Naples, FL to
Detroit
1 5 $4,668.10
$13,765.00
264.
5/1/07
Tallahassee 0
2 7 $7,196.65
$10,360.00
265.
5/27/07
to
Tallahassee
2 7 $7,391.15
$20,625.00
.55-
' m.
_ =-_{;§"
__:<;1;.
' V »‘ .. , ,1»)-.1-. _- g ;~‘ .=;\,, - ~>--,~.._~'»1 -511%)‘ -1
,P~ar.--1\I*q-.;;r P. Haggis); . fl'?sfin¢tluti(§3,i »+=.Etas“§,§,n@+;s-»*~,
wt t ,
.1: 3-Wu".-‘¢_-. >_; ,'_- ff:r;;,,;rt;,._-_»;<f,“}' 7 _ - 1 » , '
. - . I ‘ * ' ,1 "ff, "“§_';’ "-"’1,j’\3ti‘,g,.,E_i$;‘§§,;7;. E‘-*".t~,.:
ll‘! 0 ‘ -- . . * W" 1'!" L‘ X ‘~ ~ l-Y.-'»I.'»"'..;_.. ..>l.f;'*£&i
5/29/07
266. 6/13/07 Tallahassee’ 2 3
to
6/14/07
267. 6/3 0/07 Tallahassee 2 7
[0
8/ 14/07
268. 9/16/07 Tallahassee 2 3
to
9/17/07
269. 1 1/2/07 Tallahassee 3
to Miami
1 1/5/07 '
270. l 2/ 2 7/ 07 'l'allahassee 1 5 $3,890.08 $10,360.00
271. 1/23/08 Tallahassee 2 5 $7,585.66 $23,582.00
ID
l/27/08
‘ . =-5 'T0te.is-. .. -.
$7,196.65 $10,360.00
$7, I 96.65 Y $22,240.00
$7,391.15 $20,720.00
6 $10,308.71 $26,880.00
%E
1 \\
Q“:
.- ~../>. mi »?7~1:i='~r
1 .s . »
E. Kwame Kilpatrick Obtained More than $75,000 in Free Private
Jet Flights and Entertainment From A Representative of C0rnpanyM
272. As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, in or between 2006 and 2007,
KWAME KILPATRICK obtained free private jet service and entertainment expenses worth
more than $74,000 from Company M, by exploiting Company M’s fear that if it did not do so,
KWAME KILPATRICK and his ex officio representatives and allies on the City of Detroit Police
and Fire (“P&F”) pension fund and the City of Detroit General Retirement System (“GRS”)
.56-
would financially harm Company M’ s business managing over $150 million in properties owned
by the P&F and a $10 million GRS investment.
273. In or about 2006, at the direction of KWAME KILPATRICK, two upper-level
officials in the Mayor’s Office, including one of KWAME Kilpatrick‘s ex officio
representatives to the City pension funds, warned a representative of Company M that KWAME
KILPATRICK was upset with the representative for supporting KWAME KILPATRICK’s
opponent in the November 2005 election for mayor.
274. in or about April 2007, in an attempt to reconcile with KWAME
KILPATRICK, Company M, at the request of one of KWAME KILPATRICK’s ex officio
representatives to the City pension funds, permitted KWAME KILPATRICK and five of his
associates to fly on a private jet Company M chartered to Las Vegas over the weekend of
April 13, 2007, for a golfing trip. Company M paid for greens fees, lodging, meals, limousine
service, concert tickets and massages for KWAME KILPATRICK and his group at a cost of
more than $16,000, which was never reimbursed.
275. In or about mid-July 2007, Company M, at the request of one of KWAME
KILPATRICK’s ex officio representatives to the City pension funds, chartered a private plane for
KWAME KILPATRICK at a cost of more than $24,000 so KWAME KJLPATRICK could go on
a trip to Tallahassee, Florida over the weekend of July 20, 2007. No one from Company M Went
on this trip nor was Company M reimbursed by KWAME KILPATRJCK.
276. In or about mid-September 2007, Company M, at the request of one of
KWAME KILPATRICK’s ex officio representatives to the City pension funds, chartered a
private plane for KWAME KILPATRICK at a cost of more than $34,000 so KWAME
-57..
KILPATRICK could fly to Bermuda over the weekend of October 4, 2007 with KWAME
KILPATRlCK’s wife, BERNARD KILPATRICK and BERNARD KILPATRlCK’s companion.
No one from Company M went on this trip nor was Company M reimbursed by KWAME
KILPATRICK. '
F. Kwame Kilpatrick Directed Marc Andre Cunningham to Pay Bernard
Kilpatrick Part of Cunningham’s Commission for Pension Fund Investments
277._ As set forth more fully in this subsection, below, in or between about 2006
and 2007, at the direction of KWAME KILPATRICK, the Mayor‘s executive assistant, Marc
Andre Cunningham, paid BERNARD KILPATRICK at least $15,000 of Cunningham’s
commission on a pension fund consulting deal, in return for KWAME KILPATRlCK’s support
of investments by the City of Detroit’s General Retirement System (“GRS”) and Police and Fire
(“P&F”) pension funds to a firm Cunningham represented.
.278. In or about the Summer of 2006, at a restaurant in Detroit, KWAME
KILPATRICK, through one of his high-level aides, directed Cunningham to pay BERNARD
KILPATRICK a portion of the commissions Cunningham received from a venture capital firm
(“the Firm") for Cunningham’s assistance obtaining a $30 million investment from the GRS and
the P&F pension funds. KWAME KILPATRICK and MILLER were both present when
Cunningham was told to make these payments.
279. On or about October 4, 2006, at the direction of KWAME KILPATRICK,
Cunningham met with BERNARD KILPATRICK at the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center
and provided BERNARD KILPATRICK at least $4,000 in cash. It was understood between
Cunningham and KWAME KILPATRICK that this and future payments were to be made to
_5g.
BERNARD KILPATRICK to reward KWAME KILPATRICK for his support of the GRS and
P&F investments and to obtain favorable treatment by KWAME KJLPATRICK in any future
business that might arise between Cunningham and the City of Detroit.
280. On or about January 29, 2007, at the direction of KWAME. KJLPATRICK,
Cumingham met with BERNARD KILPATRICK at the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center
and provided BERNARD KJLPATRICK at least $4,000 in cash.
281. On or about June 27, 2007, at the direction of KWAME KILPATRICK,
Cunningham met with BERNARD KILPATRICK at the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center
and provided BERNARD KILPATRICK at least $4,000 in cash.
282. Between about October 2006 and June 2007, KWAME KILPATRICK asked
Cunningham when he was going to be paid his commission, as a way to remind Cunningham to
pay BERNARD KILPATRICK when he received the commission payment.
283. ln or about the Fall of 2007, following a media report of an FBI undercover
corruption investigation that implicated Cunningham, KWAME KILPATRICK told Cunningham
to stop paying BERNARD KILPATRICK.
G. Ferguson Directed Owner of Company E to Pay Bernard Kilpatrick $40,000
284. In or about January 2005, FERGUSON directed the owner of Company E to
pay BERNARD KTLPATRICK $40,000 so Company E could obtain business with the City.
285. On or about January 21, 2005, the owner of Company E paid BERNARD
KILPATRICK $40,000.
286. Following the payment, BERNARD KILPATRICK did not help Company E
obtain any City business.
-59-
H. Miller Directed A Theater Developer to Pay Bernard Kilpatrick
For the Opportunity to Purchase and Renovate Ford Auditorium
287. In or about 2003, MILLER met with a theater developer who offered to
purchase and renovate City-owned Ford Auditorium in Detroit. MILLER told the theater
developer that he liked the offer.
288. ‘ During the month following the meeting with MILLER in 2003, the theater
developer obtained artist renderings, a renovation proposal, insurance quotes and an assessment
on asbestos relating to his plan to renovate Ford Auditorium.
289. In or about 2003, after the theater developer spent time and money on a
proposal to renovate Ford Theater, he met again with MILLER. During this meeting, MILLER
provided a business card for BERNARD KILPATRICK and told the theater developer that he
needed to hire BERNARD KILPATRICK in order to conclude an agreement with the City. The
theater developer refused, and the renovation of Ford Auditorium did not go forward.
IV. PROCEEDS FROM THE RACKETEERING ACTIVITY
A. Ferguson Shared Proceeds of the
Racketeering Activity With Kwame Kilpatrick
290. In or about early July 2003, FERGUSON gave KWAME KILPATRICK about
$7,000 in cash.
291. In or about late July 2003, FERGUSON collected more than $200,000 in
campaign donations for KWAIVTE KILPATRICK’s campaign fund, with KWAME
I(ILPATRICK’s knowledge, although FERGUSON was not among the identified donors.
-50-
,
292. In or about late May 2004, FERGUSON gave KWAME KILPATRJCK at least
$12,500 in cash on consecutive dates, consisting of at least $8,500 cash on one day and at least
$4,000 cash the next day.
293. In or about mid July 2004, in violation of State campaign finance laws,
FERGUSON caused the purchase of more than $40,000 in money orders using funds from
Ferguson Enterprises, which were then given to employees, friends, relatives and associates of
FERGUSON (hereafter, “straw donors") to sign and endorse to “Kilpatrick for Mayor” in order
to conceal that FERGUSON and his company were the true source of the donations,
294. From about June to July 2005, FERGUSON and his associates instructed some
of-the “straw donors” identified in the “previous paragraph to lie to federal investigators and a
federal grand jury about the fact that FERGUSON had paid for their donations to the “Kilpatrick
for Mayor” campaign, including the following:
a. In or about June 2005, FERGUSON told Straw Donor/I to tell FBI agents
that she had paid for the money orders she signed for “Kilpatrick for Mayor," when in
truth and fact, as they both well knew, FERGUSON had funded the donations. After
Straw Donor A reported back to FERGUSON that she had told the FBI agents that she
paid for the money orders, FERGUSON told her to stick to that story because otherwise
they both could go tojail. FERGUSON further instructed Straw Donor A to tell one of
her family members, who also made a straw donation to “Kilpatrick for Mayor," to claim
that the family member had paid for her donation, when in truth and fact, as they both
well knew, FERGUSON had funded it. ’
.61.
I O
b. In or about July 2005, shortly before Straw Donor B was to testify before a
federal grand jury, FERGUSON showed up unannounced at her house and instructed her
to deny to the grand jury that the money orders she signed for “Kilpatrick for Mayor”
came from FERGUSON, when in truth and fact, as they both well knew, FERGUSON
paid for the money orders. FERGUSON warned Straw Donor B that if she told the grand
jury that FERGUSON had paid for the money orders, she would get one of her family
members in trouble.
e. In or about June 2005, an associate of FERGUSON told Straw Donor C to
tell investigators that he paid for his money order to “Kilpatrick for Mayor,” when in truth
and fact as they both well knew, FERGUSON paid for the donation.
295. In or about late March 2008, FERGUSON gave $75,000 to the Kilpatrick
Civk Fund
296. In or about the Summer of 2008, FERGUSON went to Courier A’s room at the
Athenium Hotel in Detroit and gave him a bag containing $90,000 in cash with instructions to
hold the money for KWAME KILPATRICK. At KWAME I(ILPATRICK’s direction, Courier A
delivered the cash to KWAME KILPATRICK in two installments, giving him $50,000 cash at
the Hilton Hotel in Southlake, Texas in or about mid-September 2008, and $40,000 cash at the
Park Shelton Apartments in Detroit in or about late October 2008.
B. Kwame Kilpatrick Used Cash Proceeds from the Racketeering Activity
297. In or about the following years, KWAME KILPATRICK used the following
amounts of cash, derived from the racketeering activity, to make deposits into his bank accounts,
pay his credit card and other bills, purchase cashier’s checks and clothing and repay loans:
-62.
$ V W .<.\». ~.<. . . ».,.,,» .l .r'I1—vt ., - < -A -.; . »-< =v ~
“ ’” P V ~?{*“-" ,?G<i" W2 '=w~"*'€§;&~_f¢§s. 1. ?s§;’g§?*'¢’~< “B1 ";%§,:== M‘. M1553;
n ~ " v.- . -V < ~ ~s- L.-1.,-ml .~: .=* ~ ' ='. ~ ' -* v
PMIG
2002
cash bank deposits and cash
payments for credit card and
clothing
$29,314.00
2003
cash bank deposits and cash
payments for credit card and
clothing
$80,070.00
2004
cash bank deposits and cash
payments for credit card and
clothing
$68,548.00
2005
cash bank deposits, cash payments
for credit card and clothing, cash
purchases of cashier’s checks
$80,200.00
2006
cash bank deposits and cash
payments for credit card and
clothing
$92,474.00
2007
cash bank deposits, cash payments
for credit card and clothing, cash
purchase of cashier’s check
$105,961.00
2008
cash bank deposits, cash payments
for credit card, clothing and crisis
manager, cash purchases of
cashier’s checks, cash loan repayments
$124,379.00
2009
cash payments on credit card and
cash loan repayments
$13,913.00
Total
-63-
C. Bernard Kilpatrick Used Cash Proceeds From the Racketeering Activity
306. In or about the following years, BERNARD KILPATRICK deposited the
following amounts of cash from the racketeering activity into his personal bank accounts:
307. 2002
cash bank deposits
$122,810.00 Z
308. 2003
cash bank deposits
$134,240.00
309. 2004
cash bank deposits
$123,700.00
3 10. 2005
cash bank deposits
$88,300.00
311. 2006
cash bank deposits
$59,905.00
V 312. 2007
cash bank deposits
$50,200.00
313. _ 2008
cash bank deposits
$23,900.00
Total
-j’ 40;‘, 1 1 -
r it 1215:‘ = ;;~2;i-mt,-0. 1 zrm
sit»,
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(d).
COUNT TWO
(18 U.S.C. § 1951 ~ Interference with Commerce by Extortion — Sewer Lining Contract)
D-1 KWAME M. KILPATRICK
D-2 BOBBY W. FERGUSON
D-3 BERNARD N. KILPATRICK
D-5 DERRICK MILLER
1. The Grand Jury incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 6 of the “General
Allegations” above, as well as Count One above, as if they were set forth in full herein.
2. From in or about April 2002 to November 2006, in the Eastern District of
Michigan, defendants KWAME M. KILPATRICK, BOBBY W. FERGUSON, BERNARD N.
KILPATRJCK and DERRICK A. MILLER, aiding and abetting each other, did knowingly and
unlawhilly obstruct, delayand affect interstate commerce through extortion, in that they obtained
-54-
payments from Company I consisting of contract revenues of more than $23.7 million, with the
consent of Company I induced by wrongful fear of economic harm and under color of official
right. That is, KWAME KILPATRICK, aided and abetted by FERGUSON, BERNARD
KILPATRICK and MILLER, held up a $50 million sewer lining contract that previously had
been awarded to Company I until the company agreed to replace its minority subcontractor with
FERGUSON on terms acceptable to FERGUSON.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951 and Z.
COUNT THREE
(18 U.S.C. § 1951 — Interference with Commerce by Extortion
Amendment to Sewer Lining Contract)
D-1 KWAME M. KILPATRICK
D-2 BOBBY W. FERGUSON
D-5 DERRICK A. MILLER
1. The Grand J my incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 6 of the “General
Allegations” above, as well as Count One above, as if they were set forth in full herein.
2. From in and between September 2004 and December 23, 2005, in the Eastern
District of Michigan, defendants KWAME M, KILPATRICK, BOBBY W. FERGUSON and
DERRICK A, MILLER, aiding and abetting each other, did knowingly and unlawfully obstruct,
delay and affect interstate commerce through extortion, in that they obtained payments from
Company I of about $175,000 in connection with an amendment to a sewer lining contract, with
the consent of Company I induced by wrongful fear of economic harm and under color of official
right.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951 and 2.
-65-
COQEI FQQR
(18 U.S.C. § l95l - Interference with Commerce by Extortion ~ Baby Creek/Patton Park)
D-l KWAME M. KILPATRICK
D-2 BOBBY W. FERGUSON
D-4 VICTOR M. MERCADO
D-S DERRICK A. MILLER '
1. The Grand J ury incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 6 of the “General
Allegations” above, as welllas Count One above, as if they were set forth in full herein.
2. From in and between February 2003 and 2008, in the Eastern District of
Michigan, defendants KWAME M. KILPATRICK, BOBBY W. FERGUSON, VICTOR M.
MERCADO and DERRICK A. MILLER, aiding and abetting each other, did knowingly and
unlawfully obstruct, delay and affect interstate commerce through extortion, in that they obtained
from Company Wmore than $5 million in work for FERGUSON and his affiliated companies at
Baby Creek and Patton Park, with the consent of Company W induced by wrongful fear of
economic harm and under color of official right.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951 and 2.
COUNT FIVE
(18 U.S.C. § 1951 ~ Attempted Interference with Commerce by Extortion
Oakwood Pump Station)
D-I KWAME M. KILPATRICK
D-2 BOBBY W. FERGUSON
D-4 VICTOR M. MERCADO
1. The Grand Jury incorporates by reference paragraphs l through 6 of the “General
Allegations” above, as well as Count One above, as if they were set forth in full herein.
2. From in or about January 2007 to about April 2007, in the Eastern District of
Michigan, defendants KWAME M. KILPATRICK, BOBBY W. FERGUSON and VICTOR M.
-55-
'\i3....
MERCADO, aiding and abetting each other, did knowingly and tmlawfully attempt to obstruct,
delay and affect interstate commerce through extortion, in that defendants KWAME
KILPATRICK, FERGUSON and MERCADO pressured Company Wtc consent to partner with
FERGUSON in a $140 million construction project at the Oakwood pump station, and attempted
to induce that consent by wrongful fear of economic harm and under color of official right.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951 and 2.
CQUNT SIX
(l 8 U.S.C. § 666(a) — Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds
Downtcwn Water Main Repairs)
D-1 KWAME M. KILPATRICK
D-2 BOBBY W. FERGUSON
1. The Grand Jury incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 6 of the “General
Allegations” above, as well as Count One above, as if they were set forth in full herein.
2. In or between about 2003 and 2007, in the Eastern District of Michigan,
defendant KWAME M. KILPATRICK, while an agent of the City of Detroit, an entity that
received more than $10,000 in federal funding during each of the calendar years of 2003 through
2007, did corruptly solicit and demand for the benefit of any person, and accepted and agreed to
accept a stream of gratuities totaling more than $5,000 from defendant BOBBY W. 0
FERGUSON, intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with business and
transactions of a value of $5,000 or more with the City of Detroit. That is, in exchange for items
of value from FERGUSON, KWAME KILPATRICK, with the assistance of other City officials,
steered subcontracts and emergency task orders to FERGUSON in connection with a
$l9.8 million downtown water main replacement contract administered by Company D.
_ -67-
Following their intervention into the contracting process, including giving FERGUSON
downtown work originally assigned to the lowest bidder, FERGUSON, from the start of the
contract through the Spring of 2007, obtained more than $4 million in work on the downtown
water main project. '
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 666(a) and 2.
fl ' '
(18 U.S.C. § 1951 — interference with Commerce by Extortion -— Outfalls Contract)
D-1 KWAME M. KILPATRICK
D-2 BOBBY W. FERGUSON
1. The Grand Jury incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 6 Qfthfl “General
Allegations” above, as well as Count One above, as if they were set forth in full herein. .
2. From in or about the Summer of 2005 to about the Summer of 2007, in the
Eastern District of Michigan, defendants BOBBY W. FERGUSON and KWAME M.
KILPATRICK, aiding and abetting each other, did knowingly and unlawfully obstruct, delay and
affect interstate commerce through extortion, in that they obtained payments from Company L
and Company/1 of more than $1.7 million from a sewer outfalls contract for no services
rendered, with the consent of Company L and Company A induced by wrongful fear of economic
harm and under color of official right.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951 and 2.
.53.
COUNT EIGHT
(18 U.S.C, § 1951 — Interference with Commerce by Extortion — Asbestos Abatement)
D-1 KWAME M. KILPATRICK
D-2 BOBBY W. FERGUSON
1. The Grand Jury incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 6 of the “General
Allegations” above, as well as Count One above, as if they were set forth in full herein.
2. From in or about October 2005 to about February 2007 in the Eastern District of
Michigan, defendants BOBBY W. FERGUSON and KWAME M. KILPATRICK, aiding and
abetting each other, did knowingly and unlawfully obstruct, delay and affect interstate commerce
through extortion, in that they obtained payments from Company L of about $75,000 in relation
to an asbestos contract for no services rendered, with the consent of Company L induced by
wrongful fear of economic harm and tmder color of official right.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951 and 2.
COUNT NINE
(18 U,S.C. § l95l — Interference with Commerce by Extortion
Repair of Eastside Water Mains)
D-1 KWAME M. KILPATRICK
D-2 BOBBY W. FERGUSON
1. The Grand Jury incorporates by reference paragraphs l through 6 of the “General
Allegations" above, as well as Count One above, as if they were set forth in full herein,
2. From in or about the Spring of 2006 to about August 2008, in the Eastern District
of Michigan, defendants BOBBY W. FERGUSON and KWAME M. KJLPATRJCK, aiding and
abetting each other, did knowingly and unlawfully obstruct, delay and affect interstate commerce
through extortion, in that FERGUSON and his affiliated company, Xcel Construction Services,
.59.
obtained payments and subcontracts from Company L and CompanyA worth more than
$12.9 million from a contract to repair water mains on the east side of the City, with the consent
of Company L and Company A induced by wrongful fear of economic harm and under color of
official right. ‘
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951 and 2.
CQUNT TEN
(l8 U,S.C. § 1951 — Interference with Commerce by Extortion — Eastside Sewer Repairs)
D-ll KWAME M. KILPATRICK
D-2 BOBBY W. FERGUSON
1. The Grand Jury incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 6 of the “General
Allegations” above, as well as Count One above, as if they were set forth in mu herein.
2. From in or about the Summer of 2006 to about 2008, in the Eastern District of
Michigan, defendants BOBBY W. FERGUSON and KWAME M. KILPATRICK, did knowingly
and unlawfully obstruct, delay and affect interstate commerce through extortion, in that they
obtained more than $5 million in earthwork and point repair work from Company L and
Company A arising out of a sewer repair contract for the east side of the City, with the consent of
Company L and Company A induced by wrongful fear of economic harm and under color of
official right.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951 and 2.
.70.
QQQET ELEZEQ
(18 U.S.C. § 1951 — Interference with Commerce by Extortion ~ Westside Sewer Repairs)
D-1 KWAME M. KILPATRICK
D-2 BOBBY W. FERGUSON c
' 1, The Grand Jury incorporates by reference paragraphs l through 6 of the “General
Allegations” above, as well as Count One above, as if they were set forth in full herein.
2. From in or about June 2006 to about 2008, in the Eastern District of Michigan,
defendants BOBBY W. FERGUSON and KWAME M. KILPATRICK, aiding and abetting each
other, did knowingly and unlawfully obstruct, delay and affect interstate commerce through
extortion, in that FERGUSON obtained more than $5 million in sewer repair work on the
westside of the City from Company I, with the consent of Company I induced by wrongful fear of
economic ha.rm and under color of official right.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951 and 2.
COUNT IHELVE
(18 U.S.C. § 666(a) — Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds
Security Systems Contract)
D-1 KWAME M. KILPATRICK
D-2 BOBBY W. FERGUSON
1. The Grand Jury incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 6 of the “General
Allegations“ above, as well as Count One above, as if they were set forth in full herein.
2. In or between about 2003 and 2008, in the Eastern District of Michigan,
defendant M. KILPATRICK, while an agent of the City of Detroit, an entity that
received more than $10,000 in federal funding during each of the calendar years of 2003 to 2008,
did corruptly solicit and demand for the benefit of any person, and accepted and agreed to accept
_71_
a stream of gratuities totaling more than $5,000 from defendant EOBBY W; FERGUSON,
intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with business and transactions of a value
of $5,000 or more with the City of Detroit. That is, in exchange for items of value from
FERGUSON, KWAME KILPATRICK, with the assistance of other City officials, rigged the
evaluation and award of a contract to upgrade security systems at various DWSD facilities
(“security contract”) so FERGUSON’s team would win the contract. From the start of the work
to about June 2008, FERGUSON obtained more than $1.2 million of work on the security I
contract.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 666(a) and 2.
COUNT THIRTEEN
(I 8 U.S.C. § IS12(c) — Obstruction of Justice — Mercado Deposition)
D-4 VICTOR M. MERCADO
1. The Grand Jury incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 6 of the “General
Allegations” above, as well as Count One above, as if they were set forth in full herein.
2. In or about January and February 2006, in the Eastern District of Michigan,
defendant VICTOR M. MERCADO did corruptly obstruct, influence and impede an official
proceeding, that is an investigation authorized by a federal judge into the appropriateness of the
award of a security contract by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department. In particular, on or
about February 10, 2006, during a deposition authorized by a federal judge investigating the
appropriateness of a security contract awarded to a team including defendant BOBBY W.
FERGUSON, MERCADO testified that the contract was completed on time and on budget
without extras or change orders. When asked whether he had any conversations with
-72.
FERGUSON, MERCADO testified, “Absolutely not. I don’! talk to bidders when they’re
bidding." MERCADO further denied having any contact with members of the Mayor‘s Office
regarding the negotiations over the security contract. In truth and in fact, as MERCADO well
knew at that time, the contract would require more time and money before it was completed. In
order to obscure any additional security system costs, MERCADO, in the weeks leading up to his
deposition, authorized that additional security system work at DWSD facilities be funded out of
an unrelated pump station contract, rather than the security contract. Moreover, MERCADO, as
he well knew and contrary to his deposition testimony, had a number of meetings and
conversations with FERGUSON and MILLER at critical stages during DWSD’s evaluation of
the security contract, including with MILLER on January 13, 2004 and with FERGUSON on
February 11, 2004.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(c).
COUNT FOURTEEN
(18 U.S.C. § 1951 — Attempted Interference with Commerce by Extortion — Sludge Contract)
D-3 BERNARD N. KILPATRICK
l. The Grand Jury incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 6 of the “General
Allegations" above, as well as Count One above, as if they were set forth in full herein.
2. From in or about December 20, 2007 to about April I8, 2008, in the Eastern i
District of Michigan, defendant BERNARD N. KILPATRICK did knowingly and unlawfully
attempt to obstruct, delay and affect interstate commerce through extortion, namely, demanding
payments from James Rosendall, including a payment of about $5,000 for no services rendered,
.73.
» ,»~v-11-e.-.,».,..-..~
and attempted to induce the consent of Rosendall by wrongful fear of economic harm and under
color of official right.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951.
COUNT FIFTEEN
(18 U.S.C. § 666(a) ~ Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds —- $90,000 Bribe)
D-1 KWAME M. KILPATRICK .
D-2 BOBBY W. FERGUSON
1. The Grand Jury incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 6 of the “General
Allegations" above, as well as Count One above, as if they were set forth in filll herein.
2. On or between about mid September 2008 and late October 2008, in the Eastern
District of Michigan, defendant KWAME M. KILPATRICK, while an agent of the City of
Detroit, an entity that received more than $10,000 in federal funding during the calendar year
2008, did corruptly solicit and demand for the benefit of any person, and accepted and agreed to
accept about $90,000 in cash from defendant BOBBY W. FERGUSON, which was delivered in
installments on or about mid September 2008, in Southlake, Texas, and on or about late
October 2008, in Detroit, Michigan, intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with
business and transactions of a value of $5,000 or more with the City of Detroit, that is, KWAME
KILPATRlCK’s assistance in steering City contracts to FERGUSON and pressuring persons
with City contracts to hire or pay FERGUSON.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 666(a) and 2.
-74-
COUNT SIX! EEN
(18 U.S.C. § 666(a) — Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds — $75,000 Bribe)
D-1 KWAME M. KILPATRICK
D-2 BOBBY W. FERGUSON
1.‘ The Grand Jury incorporates by reference paragraphs l through 6 of the “General
Allegations" above, as well as Count One above, as if they were set forth in full herein.
2. On or about mid March 2008, in the Eastern District of Michigan, defendant
KWAME M. KILPATRICK, while an agent of the City of Detroit, an entity that received more
than $10,000 in federal funding during the calendar year 2008, did corruptly solicit and demand
for the benefit of any person, and accepted and agreed to accept $75,000 from defendant BOBBY
W. FERGUSON’s company, Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., which was deposited into the Kilpatrick
Civic Fund, intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with business and
transactions of a value of $5,000 or more with the City of Detroit, that is, KWAME
KILPATRICK’s assistance in steering City contracts to FERGUSON and pressuring persons
with City contracts to hire or pay FERGUSON.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 666(a) and 2.
COUNTS SEVENTEEN THROUGH TWENTY-NINE
(l8 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343: Mail and Wire Fraud)
D-1 KWAME M. KILPATRICK
General Allegations As to Counts Seventeen Through Twenty-Nine
1. On or about July 8, 1999, the Kilpatrick Civic Fund, Inc. (“the Civic Fund”),
controlled by KWAME KILPATRICK, received federal tax exempt status as a social welfare
organization pursuant to Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code after KWAME
-75-
KILPATRICK caused an application to be submitted to the United States Department of the
Treasury (“the Treasury Department") (“the application”), which contained the following
representations:
a. The application claimed that the Civic Fund’s purposes were the
following:
l i. Promoting community activities that enhance the neighborhoods in
which the citizens of Detroit reside as well as those activities that contribute to the
betterment of the lives of the youth of Detroit and its surrounding communities;
ii. Providing information to the citizens of the City of Detroit and the
State of Michigan about legislative issues affecting their lives and promoting the
importance of voting and related activities; and i
m. Participating in those activities that contribute to the
redevelopment of a positive image of the City of Detroit and benefit the
community at large.
b. The application further claimed that the Civic Fund had not spent and did
not plan to spend any money attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election
or appointment of any person to any federal, state, or local public office.
_ c. The application further claimed that, “[the Civic Fund] shall not
participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of or against any candidate
for public office." -
d. The application further claimed that the Civic Fund would operate
exclusively for charitable and educational purposes and that it would receive and
-76.
administer its assets exclusively for charitable, educational, religious or scientific
purposes.
e. The application filrther claimed that, “in the event of the dissolution [of the
Civic Fund], all of [the Civic Fund ’s] assets shall be distributed to a 501(c)(4)
organization with a similar purpose by majority vote of the Board of Director[s]."
The Scheme and Artifice to Defraud I
2. Beginning In or about 1999, KWAME KILPATRICK devised a scheme and
artifice to defraud donors to the Civic Fund of monies they donated to it.
3. It was part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that KWAME KILPATRICK
would claim to the Internal Revenue Service, the public and potential donors that the Civic Fund
was a social welfare organization that spent its funds in ways consistent with the purposes stated
in its application for tax exempt status. In truth and in fact, as he well knew, KWAME
KILPATRICK used monies donated to the Civic Fund for personal expenses and for his political
campaigns, neither of which was identified as one of the purposes of the Civic Fund.
4. It was part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that KWAME KILPATRICK
would hold events to raise money for the Civic Fund, at which he and others would claim to
potential donors that the Civic Fund spent its funds in ways consistent with the purposes stated in
its application for tax exempt status.
5. It was part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that KWAME KILPATRICK
would falsely claim to the news media that the Civic Fund was not used for his political
campaigns.
-77-
6. It was part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that KWAME KILPATRICK
would send and cause to be sent letters to donors and potential donors which claimed that the
Civic Fund used its funds consistent with the purposes outlined in its application for tax exempt
status and specifically stated that “No funds of the Civic Fund are donated to a political
campaign." ~
7. It was part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that KWAME KILPATRICK
caused Civic Fund Returns of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, Forms 990, to be
submitted to the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, for tax years 2003
through 2008, which misrepresented how the Civic Fund spent its funds.
8. Contrary to the representations KWAME KILPATRICK made and caused to be
made to the IRS, the public and donors to the Civic Fund, KWAME KILPATRICK used monies
donated to the Civic Fund for the following personal expenses, among others: >
a. Cash kickbacks to KWAME KILPATRICK from an individual ‘who
worked for the Civic Fund, consisting of nearly half of the money the Civic Fund paid to
that individual;
b. Money to friends and relatives, including BERNARD KILPATRICK,
disguised as payments for purported services rendered to the Civic Fund;
c. Counter-surveillance and anti-bugging equipment;
d. Yoga lessons for KWAME KILPATRICK;
e. Golf-related expenses for KWAME KILPATRICK and others, including
lessons, a set of Nike golf clubs and a personalized golf bag;
f. Summer camp for KWAME KILPATRlCK’s children;
-73-
g. College tuition for relatives of KWAME KILPATRICK;
h. A birthday party for a relative of KWAME KILPATRICK;
i. A video documentary of KILPATRlCK‘s family history;
j. A crisis manager to manage KWAME KILPATRlCK’s public image i
following the public disclosure of text messages sent to and received by KWAME
KJLPATRICK on a city-owned paging device;
k. Personal moving costs for KWAME KILPATRICK and his family after he
left office;
l, Lease of a personal residence for KWAME KILPATRICK and his family
after they departed from the mayoral residence;
m. Personal travel, including hotel costs and airfare for KWAME
KILPATRlCK and his relatives and friends;
n. Lease of a Cadillac DeVille for KWAME KILPATRICK; and
0. Rental cars.
9. KWAME KILPATRICK used monies donated to the Civic Fund for his
campaigns for election and reelection to the office of Mayor of the City of Detroit, including,
l among other things, polling, focus groups, public relations and political consulting. i
10. It was also part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that KWAME
KILPATRICK, when he resigned as Mayor of Detroit in September 2008, attempted to purchase
furniture from the Manoogian Mansion Restoration Society with money from the Civic Fund.
.79.
Execution of the Scheme and Artifice to Defraud
1 l. On or about each of the dates set forth below, in the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, defendant KWAME KILPATRICK did, for the purposes of
executing the scheme and artifice to defraud described above, and attempting to do so, knowingly
caused the items described below to be delivered by U.S. mail or commercial interstate carrier
(Federal Express), such items being delivered according to the directions thereon, each such
mailing constituting a separate count of this indictment:
Count Date and Item Sent via U.S. Mail or Federal Express
i 17 June 22, 2006, donor check for $10,000 payable to the Civic Fund sent via Federal
Express.
18 February 13, 2007, letter explaining the Civic Fund to donor sent via U.S. mail.
l9 p September 26, 2007, donor check for $5,000 payable to the Civic Fund sent via
U.S. mail. '
’ 20 April 3, 2008, Civic Fund check in the amount of $4,500 for summer camp sent via
Federal Express.
21 May 23, 2008, letter soliciting a donation and explaining the Civic Fund to donor
sent via U.S. mail
. 22 June 4, 2008, Civic Fund check in the amount of $2,640 for summer camp sent via
Federal Express.
‘ 23 June 4, 2008, donor check for $10,000 payable to the Civic Ftmd sent via Federal
Express.
24 June 25, 2008, donor check for $1,000 payable to the Civic Fund sent via U.S.
mail.
25 June 30, 2008, donor check for $4,000 payable to the Civic Fund sent via Federal
. Express.
26 July 23, 2008, letter explaining the Civic Fund to donor sent via U.S. mail.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341.
_g()_
12. On or about each of the dates set forth below, in the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, KWAME KILPATRICK did, for the purposes of executing the
scheme and artifice to defraud described above, and attempting to do so, knowingly caused to be
transmitted by means of wire communication (fax) in interstate and foreign commerce certain
documents, as listed below, each wire communication constituting a separate count of this
indictment: _
27 August 24, 2007, letter soliciting a donation and explaining the Civic Fund sent to
donor via fax.
April 3, 2008; letter explaining the Civic Fund sent to donor via fax.
29 June 20, 2008, letter soliciting a donation and explaining the Civic Fund sent to
Count Date and Description of Wire Communication
28
donor via fax.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.
COUNT THIRTY
(26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) - Subscribing False Tax Return)
D-l KWAME M. KILPATRICK .
l. On or about April 1 1, 2004, in the Eastern District of Michigan, KWAME
KILPATRICK, a resident of Detroit, Michigan, did willfully make and subscribe a joint U.S.
Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040, for calendar year 2003, which was verified by a
written declaration that it was made under the penalties of perjury, and which KWAME
KILPATRICK did not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter. Specifically,
KWAME KILPATRICK did not believe the tax return to be true and correct as to every material
matter in that: (a) it failed to disclose that he had additional income in the form of cash, private
-31-
I C
jet flights and personal expenses paid for by the Civic Fund, amounting to at least $67,181,
which he well knew at that time he was required by law and regulation to disclose; and (b) it
stated on line 22 that his total income was $188,227, whereas, as he well knew at that time, his
total income was in excess of that amount.
All in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(1).
COUNT THIRTY-ONE
(26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) — Subscribing False Tax Return)
D-1 KWAME M. KILPATRICK
1. On or about April 15, 2005, in the Eastern District of Michigan, defendant
KWAME KILPATRICK, a resident of Detroit, Michigan, did vw'llfi.1lly make and subscribe a
joint U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040, for calendar year 2004, which was verified
by a written declaration that it was made under the penalties of perjury, and which KWAME
KJLPATRICK did not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter. Specifically,
KWAME KILPATRICK did not believe the tax return to be true and correct as to every material
matter in that: (a) it failed to disclose that he had additional income in the form of cashand
private jet flights, amounting to at least $74,925, which he well knew at that time he was required
by law and regulation to disclose; and (b) it stated on line 22 that his total income was $167,940,
whereas, as he well knew at that time, his total income was in excess of that amount.
All in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(1).
-32.
counr THIRTY-TWO
(26 u.s.c. § 7206(1) - Subscribing False Tax Return)
D-l KWAME M. KILPATRICK
1. On or about April 17, 2006, in the Eastern District of Michigan, defendant
KWAME KILPATRICK, a resident of Detroit, Michigan, did willfully make and subscribe a
joint U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040, for calendar year 2005, which was verified
by a written declaration that it was made under the penalties of perjury, and which KILPATRICK
did not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter. Specifically, KWAME
KILPATRICK did not believe the tax return to be true and correct as to every material matter in
that: (a) it failed to disclose that he had additional income in the form of cash and private jet
flights, amounting to at least $11,279, which he well knew at that time he was required by law
and regulation to disclose; and (b) it stated on line 22 that his total income was $156,329,
whereas, as he well knew at that time, his total income was in excess of that amount.
All in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(1).
COUNT THIRTY-THREE
(26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) — Subscribing False Tax Return)
D-1 KWAME M. KILPATRICK
l. On or about April I6, 2007, in the Eastern District of Michigan, defendant
KWAME KILPATRICK, a resident of Detroit, Michigan, did willfully make and subscribe a
joint U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040, for calendar year 2006, which was verified
by a written declaration that it was made under the penalties of perjury and which KWAME
KILPATRICK did not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter. Specifically,
-33-
_
KWAME KILPATRICK did not believe the tax return to be true and correct as to every material
matter in that: (a) it failed to disclose that he had additional income in the form of cash, private
jet flights and personal expenses paid for by the Civic Fund, amounting to at least $122,997,
which he well knew at that time he was required by law and regulation to disclose; and (b) it
stated on line 22 that his total income was $153,024, whereas, as he well knew at that time, his
total income was in excess of that amount.
All in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(1).
COQNT THIRTY-FOUR
(26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) — Subscribing False Tax Return)
D-I KWAME M. KILPATRICK
l. On or about April 15, 2008, in the Eastern District of Michigan, defendant
KWAME KILPATRICK, a resident of Detroit, Michigan, did willfully make and subscribe a
joint U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form I040, for calendar year 2007, which was verified
by a written declaration that it was made under the penalties of perjury and which KWAME
KILPATRICK did not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter. Specifically,
KWAME KILPATRICK did not believe the tax return to be true and correct as to every material
matter in that: (a) it failed to disclose that he had additional income in the form of cash, private
jet flights and personal expenses paid for by the Civic Fund, amounting to at least $194,569,
which he well knew at that time he was required by law and regulation to disclose; and (b) it
stated on line 22 that his total income was $167,005, whereas, as he well knew at that time, his
total income was in excess of that amount.
All in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(1).
-34-
COUNT THIRTY-FIVE
(26 U.S.C. § 7201 — Income Tax Evasion)
D-1 KWAME M. KILPATRICK
l. During the calendar year 2008, defendant KWAME KILPATRICK had and
received unreported taxable income in the form of cash, private jet flights and persona] expenses
paid for by the Civic Fund, amounting to at least "$261 ,751.
2. KWAME KILPATRICK owed the United States of America an income tax of
$85,397 for this unreported taxable income.
3. Well-knowing and believing the foregoing facts, KWAME KILPATRICK, in and
between January 1, 2008 and April 13, 2009, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, and elsewhere, did willfully attempt to evade and defeat a large part of the income tax
due and owing by him and his spouse to the United States of America for the calendar year 2008
and did take affirmative action to evade these taxes. Specifically, he concealed income from the
Internal Revenue Service in the following ways: (a) he caused to be filed a false joint U.S.
Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040, for calendar year 2008; (b) he caused an individual
employed by his mayoral campaign and associated non-profits to kick cash back to him from
wages paid to the individual by the campaign and non-profits; and (c) he caused the Civic Fund
to pay for certain of his personal expenses and concealed such payments; and (d) he accepted a
$90,000 cash payment from FERGUSON.
All in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7201.
-35.
COUNT THIRTY-SIX
(26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) — Subscribing False Tax Return)
D-3 BERNARD N. KILPATRICK
l. On or about October 5, 2005, in the Eastern District of Michigan, defendant
BERNARD N. KILPATRICK, a resident of Detroit, Michigan, did willfully make and subscribe
a U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040, for calendar year 2004, which was verified by
a written declaration that it was made under the penalties of perjury, and which BERNARD N.
KILPATRICK did not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter. Specifically,
BERNARD N. KILPATRICK did not believe the tax return to be true and correct as to every
material matter in that: (a) it failed to disclose that he had additional income amounting to at least
$35,632, which he well knew at that time he was required by law and regulation to disclose; and
(b) it stated on line 22 that his total income was $336,625, whereas, as he well knew at that time,
his total income was in excess of that amount.
All in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(1).
COUNT THIRTY-SEVEN
(26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) — Subscribing False Tax Return)
D-3 BERNARD N. KILPATRICK
l. On or about October 10, 2006, in the Eastern District of Michigan, defendant
BERNARD N. KILPATRICK, a resident of Detroit, Michigan, did willfully make and subscribe
a U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040, for calendar year 2005, which was verified by
a written declaration that it was made under the penalties of perjury, and which BERNARD N.
KILPATRICK did not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter. Specifically,
-36.
BERNARD N. KILPATRICK did not believe the tax return to be true and correct as to every
material matter in that: (a) it failed to disclose that he had additional income amounting to at least
$150,329, which he well knew at that time he was required by law and regulation to disclose; and
(b) it stated on line 22 that his total income was $220,259, whereas, as he well knew at that time,
his total income was in excess of that amount.
All in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(1).
COUNT Thirty-Eight
(26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) — Subscribing False Tax Return)
D~3 BERNARD N. KILPATRICK
1. On or about October 15, 2008, in the Eastern District of Michigan, defendant
BERNARD N. KILPATRICK, a resident of Detroit, Michigan did willfully make and subscribe
a U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040, for calendar year 2007, which was verified by
a written declaration that it was made under the penalties of perjury, and which BERNARD N.
KILPATRICK did not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter. Specifically,
BERNARD N. KILPATRICK did not believe the tax return to be true and correct as to every
material matter in that: (a) it failed to disclose that he had additional income amounting to at least
$172,655, which he well knew at that time he was required by law and regulation to disclose; and
(b) it stated on line 22 that his total income was $70,529, whereas, as he well knew at that time,
his total income was in excess of that amount.
All in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(1).
-37.
CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS
(18 u.s.c. § 98l(a)(l)(C) and 2s u.s.c. § 2461(0))
l. Upon conviction of one or more counts of bribery as alleged in Counts Six,
Twelve, Fifteen and Sixteen of this Superseding Indictment, defendants KWAME M.
KILPATRICK and BOBBY W. FERGUSON shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to
I8 U.S.C. § 98l(a)(l)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), any property, real or personal, which
constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666.
2. Upon conviction of one or more counts of attempted interference with commerce
by extortion as alleged in Counts Two through Five, Seven through Eleven, and Fourteen of this
Superseding Indictment, defendants KWAME M. KILPATRICK, BOBBY W. FERGUSON,
BERNARD N. KILPATRICK, VICTOR M. MERCADO and DERRICK A. MILLER shall
forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 98l(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(0), any
property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation
01°18 U.S.C. § 1951.
3. Upon conviction of obstruction of official proceeding as alleged in Count
Thirteen of this Superseding Indictment, defendant VICTOR M. MERCADO shall forfeit to the
United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 98l(a)(l)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), any property, real
or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation of
18 u.s.c. § 1512.
4. Upon conviction of one or more counts of wire fraud or mail fraud as alleged in
Counts Seventeen through Twenty-Nine of this Superseding Indictment, defendant
KWAME M. KILPATRICK shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to
.33-
Q O
I8 U.S.C. § 98l(a)(l)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), any property, real or personal, which
constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 or
I8 U.S.C.§1343.
5. Substitute Assets. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by
I8 U.S.C. § 982(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 246l(c), defendants KWAME M. KILPATRICK,
BOBBY W. FERGUSON, BERNARD N. KILPATRICK, VICTOR M. MERCADO and
DERRICK A. MILLER shall forfeit any of their property, real or personal, up to the value of
property described in Paragraphs I through 4 above, if as a result of any act or omission of a
defendant, property subject to forfeiture:
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 coun;
d. has been substantially diminished in value; or
e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without
difficulty.
THIS IS A TRUE BILL
s/Foreperson
F OREPERSON
BARBARA L. McQUADE
United States Attorney
s/Mark Chutkow s/R. Michael Bullotta
MARK CHUTKOW R. MICHAEL BULLOTTA
Assistant United States Attorney Assistant United States Attorney
Date: December l5, 2010
_ -89-
I IIIL 5""°‘ °""'°i°°"" Criminal Case Cover Sheet C889 Numb"
Eastern Dletrlct of Mlchlgan 1o_cR 20403
NOTE: It Is the responsibility of the Assistant U.S. Attorney slgnlnq 3 s Ionnéio corngg aciurately In all respects.
This matter was opened in the USAO prior to August 15, 2008 [Yea]
W l
Companion Cale Numbers:
U.S. v. Karl Kado
08-CR-20418; Hon. Marianne O. Battanl
U.S. v. James Rosendall, Jr.,
09-CR-20025; Hon. Avern Conn
This may be a companion case based upon LCrR 67.10 (bl(4)‘: y
n Yes El No AUSA’e Initials: %Q
kl‘
Case Title: USA v. o-1 KWAME M. KILPATRICK Y: 5'
o-2 BOBBY w. FERGUSON . .5 "‘-'1:
o-a BERNARD N. KILPATRICK i ‘
04 vrcron M. mancaoo §§'r;¢ 1
o-s DERRICK A. MILLER
8€1E<i S1330
‘l§Ei"il
County where offense occurred : Wayne I:
Check One: I Felony El Misdemeanor El Petty
__IndictmentI Information --- no prior complaint.
Indictment! Information -- based upon prior complaint [Case number: 1
_K__|ndlt:tment based Upon LCrR 57.10 (d) [Complete Supersedlng section belcmq.
_: 1 $.15: -w,- 4%; --;'.r¢.1:'_.;.\'i§1=~_ I.-.131-~~ t-.:.,» .
’T~I1;";- -.»:~==tL‘}'.-’ ‘i ; »,,» >.—=‘~<. ,1-riikl‘ -F
3.... _:.'. . . >_ ...t... . r I _ = _=
Supersedlng to Case No: 10-CR-20iQ_3 Judge: NANC1§. EQM1Ll§_Q§
El Original case was terminated; no additional charges or defendants. »
El Corrects errors; no additional charges or defendants.
Involves, for plea purposes. different charges or adds counts.
Embraces same subject matter but adds the additional defendants or charges below:
Defendant name Charges Prlgr Comglglng (if aggllgaglel
See attached ~
-:3
% r =' 2 .§=I
Please take notice that the below listed Asslstan ‘ted State orney is e attorney of record for
the above captioned case.
December 15, 2010
Date MARK CHUTKOW
Assistant United States Attorney
211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001
Detroit, Ml 48226
Phone: (313) 226-9168
Mark.Chutkow@usdoj.gov
‘Companion caeea are matter: In which It appears Ihal (1) subeuantlelty ulmilar evidence will be offered at trial. (2) the same or retalea parties are prenm. and the cam arm out of the
lll'l'l! transaction er occurrence. Case: may be companion case: even though one of them may have already been temimated. W/15/09
swig erseaihg"i,oa§ié:’|§1fii7rfi‘fatfai1 J: W ___ W = E __ 7 I
______ _ -‘E
Superaeding to Case No: _, 1Q-CR-2_QQ_3 Judge: NANC! §. EQM_lJfl_Q§
‘DUB
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
Original case was terminated; no additional charges or defendants.
Corrects errors; no additional charges or defendants,
Involves, for plea purposes, different charges or adds counts.
Embraces same subject matter but adds the addltlonal defendants or charges below:
Qgfggdant name
KWAME M. KILPATRICK
BOBBY W. FERGUSON
BERNARD N. KILPATRICK
VICTOR M. MERCADO
DERRICK A. MILLER
Gimmes. _
18 USC § 1962(d)
18 USC §§ 1951 and 2
18 USC §§ 666(8) and 2
18 USC § 1963
1a usc § 1sez(u)
1a usc §§1951and 2
1s usc §§ seam and 2
1a usc 5 196:
18 USC § 1962(d)
1B USC §§ 1951 and 2
Z6 USC §§ 7206(1)
18 USC § 1963
1a usc § 1as2(a)
1a usc 551951 and 2
1a uscg 1s12(<=)
1a usc 5 196:1
1B USC § 1962(d)
18 USC §§ 1951 and 2
18 USC § 1963
|