Part 3 Pages 191 +cheeks V Fort Myer Organized Crime

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
Page
2
3
SELECTED EXHIBTS
Exhibit 1 DOJ Guidance Manual Appendix III-Effect of Boyle vs. US on RICO
Exhibit A, Affidavit of Ronald J. Bonfilio, Documents Examiner:
23
36
Evidentiary Attachments to Exhibit A

Exhibit A, Attachment 1, Non Collusion Affidavits
42
Exhibit A, Attachment 2, Bid Bonds
69
Exhibit A Attachment 3 Public Documents Used to Create Exhibit F
86
Exhibit DR 1Civil Construction, LLC 2 year report Principals
104
Exhibit F, Depiction In Chart Form of RICO Activities. Created by Mr. Bonfilio,

from Public Information Documents Attachment 3, .
107
Exhibit G. Two Recent Contracts wherein CNA, Inc was low Bidder
Exhibit J Table I Factors Establishing RICO Enterprise
109
114
Exhibit K Table II-Criminal Violations by RICO enterprise
121
Exhibit L Table III Gallardo Sworn Statements-Excerpts
129
Exhibit O Defendant's Affiliation Matrix
133
Exhibit P-1 Police Reports: Mercedes Break in and Threat at DuPont Circle
134
Exhibit S-1 Fort Myer Dept. of Small and Local Business Application Excerpts
139
Exhibit S-2 Anchor Dept. of Small and Local Business Application Excerpts
154
Exhibit S-3 Capital Paving, Dept. of Small and Local Business Application Excerpts
166
Exhibit V- 1 Ball Joint Damage
178
Exhibit V-2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 2003

Mercedes Benz C230 Report from "Safercar"
185
PART 3
COMPLAINTS FILED BY CHEEKS V. FORT MYER ET AL Associates
John C. Cheeks, pro se v Fort Myer Construction Company et al 1:09-cv-02163
Judge Kollar-Kotelly, Colleen, 11/17/2009. Antitrust
CNA Corporations v Fort Myer Construction Company et al
Judge Kollar-Kotelly, Colleen,
194
318
CNA Corporations v Fort Myer Construction Company et al DC Superior Court

March 28, 2014 CA 001898 transferred to US District Court Judge Lamberth DC
1:14-cv-00914-RCL 9/28/15
To
Add
Proposed Third Amended Complaint
531
OTHER RELATED COMPLAINTS FILED BY JOHN CHEEKS

John C. Cheeks v. DC Board of Elections - Complaint Verified Petition for a
Temporary Restraining Order . Aug 25, 2014 Case 14- 0005272
Reserved
John Cheeks v. Robert Turner - Complaint for Malicious Interference Aug 26, 2014
Case 14-0005289
Reserved
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS AND DOCUMENTS

Unexplained Deaths
Leroy Cook Police Report
577
Leroy Cook WJLA Report and Contact Persons
579
Death Similar to Cook
581
and
"Old Mac"
Deaths
Bribery Doc 103-15 Exhibit Docket Gregorio-Sentencing
582
Associate Companies
Associated Companies: Tessa to be Added
592
CNA Financial Corporation
601
Rodriguez- Shrensky Donations and Associates.
Law Enforcement Associations

FBI Association - FBI Directors Community Leadership Award 2008
602
FBI Citizens Academy Alumni Form 990s Fort Myer Construction Company
Charitable Foundations and Washington DC Police Foundation
604
Donations to Religious Organizations - Shrensky Foundation
606
Political Donations and Influence

Defendants Political Contributions from Cheeks of North America Complaint Exhibit
607
Anita Bonds, DC Council Member

Anita Bonds Listed as Fort Myer Employee
627
Associate Companies
592
Associated Companies
601
CNA Financial Corp

Associate Companies
592
Associated Companies
601
CNA Financial Corp
Bonds: DC Candidate focuses on changing demographics in debate

Page 630 Said she would step down as a Fort Myer Construction Executive-Article
628
Anita Bonds pulls in heavy corporate donations -Washington Post Article
632
Same as the Old Boss? Loose Lips Article, City Paper
635
Meet an At-Large DC Council Candidate Anita Bonds Washington Post Article by

Mike DeBonis
News Articles
Fort Myer Bribery - Common Denominator Article
Doc 103-12 Exhibit Bribery Documents
637
640
Fort Myer Construction Will Pay $900k To Settle Discrimination

And Harassment Case Involving 371 Women And Minorities.
- US Department of Labor News Release
642
Fort Myer's Friends Washington Post Article and Doc 103-14 Exhibit Bribery and
Debarment 2003
646
Firing of Stephen Amos Loose Lips Article
647
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 1 of 213
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. NATURE OF THIS CASE .................................................................................................................... 12
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE........................................................................................................... 19
III. PARTIES ............................................................................................................................................. 19
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................. 30
V.IMMEDIATE INJUCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE ...................................................................................................................... 199
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF-FEDERAL CLAIMS UNDER TITLE 15 (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).... 202
VII. ALLOCATION OF DAMAGE RELIEF REQUESTED............................................................. 204
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LAW,
CONSPIRACY, FRAUD AND COMMON LAW CLAIMS.183 ................................................205
IX.
SUMMARY OF DAMAGES: DEFENDANTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE.... 207
X. VERIFICATION BY PLAINTIFF ................209

XI.
REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JUDGE ............210
XII. ATTACHMENT I LETTER FROM DCDOT CONTRACT AWARDED TO FORT MYER

CONSTRUCTION CORP, DCKA-2009-C-0025...........................................................................212
First Count: Violation of Section 1 of The Sherman Anti-Trust Act Affiliated Companies Bidding
Federally Funded Infrastructure Contracts ..................................................................................................37
Second Count: Violation of Sherman Anti - Trust Act By A Surety Company; Endorsement
and Registrar Issuance of Surety Bid Bond Instrument(s) for Affiliated Defendant Customers or
Clients ......45
Third Count: Bid-Rigging; Conspiracy of Restraint of Trade, Section 1 of The Sherman
Anti - Trust Act ..................................................................................................................................... ..53
325
Fourth Count: Price Fixing ......60

Fifth Count: Monopoly by Defendant Companies ................................ 65
Sixth Count: Coercive Monopoly; Owners, Directors, Officers of Companies, Elected Public
Officials and Appointed Employees by Public Officials................................................. 71
Seventh Count: : Contract Steering .. 82
Eighth Count: Violation of Non-Collusion Affidavit for District of Columbia Water and Sewer
Authority and District of Columbia, Department of Transportation of IFB Solicitations... 92
Ninth Count:. Violation of DC Code 28- 4502; Engaging in a Bid-Rigging Conspiracy by Directors,
Owners and Officers ... 99
Tenth Count: Breached Procurement Regulations . 107
Eleventh Count: Common Law Fraud ........................................................ 113
Twelfth Count: Oversight Failure, Gross Negligence and Fraud of Governance Boards, Corporate
Boards and the District of Columbia Government ....... .166
Thirteenth Count: Tortious Interference with Business Relationships; Plaintiffs Debtors. .................180
326
COMPLAINT
NOTE TO COURT
1. This claim is related to Civil Action Case No.. 1:09-cv-02163 CKK, which had many of the same
Defendants that committed the same violations.
The District Court, incident to the prior dismissal, suggested that in re-filing this case the plaintiff
include in the opening paragraphs, a summary of the several counts with the magnitude of damages
stated separately for each count. The following table attempt to follow the Courts request.
327
Table 1 RELIEF AMOUNT BY COUNTS October 13, 2010

1
First Count: Violation of Section 1 of The Sherman Anti-Trust Act

Affiliated Companies Bidding Federally Funded Infrastructure Contracts
Second Count: Violation of Sherman Anti - Trust Act A By Surety

Company; Endorsement and Registrar Issuance of Surety Bid Bond
Instrument(s) for Affiliated Defendant Customers or Clients
Third Count: Bid-Rigging; Conspiracy of Restraint of Trade, Section 1 of

The Sherman Anti - Trust Act
$ 78,248,445.01
Fourth Count: Price Fixing
$ 25,424,566.02
Fifth Count: Monopoly by Defendant Companies
Sixth Count: Coercive Monopoly; Owners, Directors, Officers of

Companies, Elected Public Officials and Appointed Employees by Public
Officials
Seventh Count: Contract Steering.
Eighth Count: Violation of Non-Collusion Affidavit for District of

Columbia Water and Sewer Authority and District of Columbia, Department $ 255,652,771.79
of Transportation of IFB Solicitations.
Ninth Count: Violation of DC Code 28- 4502; Engaging in a Bid-Rigging

Conspiracy by Directors, Owners and Officers Constitutes Interference.
10
Tenth Count Breached Procurement Regulations
11
Eleventh Count: Common Law Fraud
$ 91,900,488.70
$ 15,524,671.48
$76,582,273.49
$ 136,427,637.94
$194,658,393.60
$ 21,425,428.00
$346,198,580.68
Twelfth Count: Oversight Failure, Gross Negligence And Fraud of

12 Governance Boards, Corporate Boards and The District of Columbia
Government
Thirteenth Count: Tortious Interference with Business Relationships;
13
Plaintiffs Debtors
Relief Prayed For Total
11
$ 582,175,180.80
$ 479,009,724.92
$ 9,132,084.00
$2,312,360,246.4
3
Eleventh Count Punitive Damages $250,000,000.00 were included above
328
I. NATURE OF THIS CASE

2. This is an action by a private corporation against four defendant contractors and their surety Company,
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 15, for violations of restraint of trade, monopoly, bid rigging and fraud
contained in 15 U.S.C. 1 through 35. The violations are contained in the Clayton Anti-trust Act,
and various provisions of District of Columbia code and common law.
3. Defendant(s) unlawful actions have undermined at random, jointly or separately fair business
principles and ethics, which has a direct impact on procurement regulations in the District of Columbia
Government for all independent companies to compete and participate for infrastructure IFB
solicitations without the threat or presence of common law fraud by Defendants
4. Government officials have issued contracts, from $13 to $68 million, on a single IFB DCKA-2009-B0025, by fraudulently by-passing statutory procedures, approvals, and oversight (See Exhibit F.7.3 and
Attachment I and Count Eleven, page 119, paragraph 363).
5. The caption of this case is presented in an unusual format with the four principal defendant
corporations and their surety, listed as five principal defendants to the federal claims. In the caption of
this case, each contracting corporation is listed is followed by each affiliated person for that respective
corporations.
6. Each such person listed is alleged to have performed some or part of the actions resulting in bid-rigging
and the obtaining of contracts under circumstances prohibited by 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq. The listings of
329
those corporations and the affiliated persons in the caption are hereby incorporated into this statement
of facts as if fully set forth herein.
7. Plaintiff submits that the presentation of the affiliation and interlocking nature of these four principal
bidders and their affiliates establishes violation of 15 U.S.C. 19 (prohibition against interlocking
directorates) with respect to the five (5) contracts alleged to be unlawful in this case. Put simply, the
collusion and the fraud inherent in the bid rigging on these five contracts is patent on the face of the
facts.
8. When the bidding parties in the purportedly competitive contracts are put side by side with the listing
above, it is clear that the biddings were not competitive and were in fact controlled by the three or four
colluding bidders. Details follow:
9. The four corporations who are alleged to be principal conspiring corporations are: Defendant Fort
Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation, Defendant Civil
Construction Corporation, and Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc.
10. Western Surety Company a Subsidiary underwriting Company of CNA Surety (Western). Paul T.
Bruflat, Senior Vice President is also a principal defendant in that the 5 contracts which are the 5
immediate subjects of the complaint could not have been executed and awarded to the defendants
without the unlawful actions committed by Western.
11. Western furnished the Bid Bond for each of the 5 contracts for all of the four colluding co-defendant
construction corporations herein. Western has admitted it knew that the four conspiring corporations
were affiliated, a patent violation of 15 U.S.C. sec 1.
330
12. Therefore, there are five (5) principal defendants in this action, with many colluding governmental
entities and persons. Those persons are included in the caption of this case under the particular entity,
board or committed with which they are affiliated for the convenience of the Court.
13. 15 U.S.C. 35 and 36 prohibit any recovery of damages from any local government or official or
employee thereof acting in an official capacity. Plaintiff alleges that no such employee who
conspired with anyone of the 5 principal defendants, or any official thereof to violate 15 U.S.C. could
possibly have been acting except in a non-governmental capacity when he allowed the bid rigging to
occur. His/her official duty was to prohibit such actions, not to facilitate unlawful acts.
14. Moreover, the District of Columbia is not a state, and is not within the definition of a local
government, therefore this exception to the power of this court to enforce the law, plaintiffs submits,
does not exist.
15. Similarly, the governmental entities and departments named as defendant persons are presented for
purposes of clarity again followed by the persons who allegedly facilitated the frauds, bid-rigging, and
contract acquisitions in violation of 15 U.S.C. sec. 1. The reader should note that the duplication of
names appearing in the caption of this case is intentionally presented for purposes of clarity.
16. Plaintiff Cheeks of North America, Inc.s (CNA) complaint consists of various allegations against
defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation, three more affiliated corporations, and their surety.
The other defendants, both corporate and individual, are listed in the caption of this case (which are
hereby incorporated by this reference). Each of the defendants either violated and/or criminally
undermined Section 1 of the Sherman Anti Trust Act and Clayton Act of 1914 or facilitated the bidrigging and monopolistic actions complained of herein (15 U.S.C. sec 1).
331
17. CNA and/or its delegate seek to act as a private Attorney General to the extent the court deems such
action appropriate in this case. Plaintiff submits that extraordinary relief is appropriate in the
cancellation of five(5) contracts as unlawful and re-awarding those contracts to CNA in light of the
obvious breakdown in the District of Columbia bidding process.
18. CNA stands ready to perform whatever part the Court deems necessary in mitigation of the upset and
damages, and reestablishing the services required by the five unlawful contracts.
19. The defendant contractors established interlocking corporate directorships, officers and employees
which gave the appearance of multiple competitive bidders on contracts. In fact however, all contract
bids were in fact essentially one unified combination designed to bring about a competitive edge
resulting in restraint of trade for the benefit of the named defendants.
20. The actions complained of herein facilitated bid rigging, common law fraud, and a resulting
monopolized District of Columbia Government process for infra-structure bidding and contracting.
The named agencies and affiliated persons of DC and WASA including the named employees/officers
and named members of the Board of Directors and committee members facilitated the actions of the
corporate contracts by steering contracts, being negligent in governance and agency oversight, while
failing utterly to perform their duties as Government and fiduciary officials.
21. The defendants used financial surety instruments all issued by the same surety company (Western) to
bid on solicited contracts, to violate Non Collusion Affidavit(s), and to commit fraud through the
securing of US government funded infrastructure American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
332
(ARRA) funded projects. While the bids appear on their face to be competitive, in reality, all bidding
was allocated and apportioned by the defendant four contracting corporations as between themselves
by prohibited collusion and deception that they were all working together and not competitively.
22. Because of cooperation by the contract overseers and supervisors in the DC government, the contracts
were steered to the corporate contractor defendants, and awards were uniformly made to them despite
the fact that they, in at least these five instances, were not the low bidder.
23. The plaintiff and the public were damaged by these unlawful actions by paying an artificial and inflated
price for the services and goods received.
24. Jointly and severally all Defendants listed in this Complaint severely injured victim Plaintiff Cheeks of
North America, Inc. by denying the Plaintiff Cheeks of North America, Inc (CNA). the opportunity to
obttain these five contracts as the low bidder. compete, earn profits and grow as a company. CNA has
also been injured in being de-facto excluded from the bidding process for all time. A projection of the
magnitude of those damages is included above, for which this action demands redress.
25. This is also an action by the plaintiff corporation, Cheeks of North America, Inc. (CNA) acting as a
private Attorney General and in its own behalf. CNA alleges a conspiracy in restraint of trade, fraud
and bribery, affecting several of the departments of the District of Columbia government (DC). A
small number of private corporate entities, by and through their officers, directors, and principle
employees, facilitated by omissions of oversight and misapplication of regulations by D.C. officials
and employees carried out the unlawful activities described in detail following.
26. All of the defendant corporations are sued as responsible conspirators and, in addition, each of the
individual unnamed persons who are employees or elected officials in the District of Columbia are
333
sued in their personal capacities. They are alleged to be participants in the conspiracy, aiding and
abetting the unlawful acts alleged herein. The employees of defendant corporations identified herein
are contracting parties who are named in their personal capacity as actual participants in the conspiracy
in restraint of trade.
27. District of Columbia Government is being sued as a responsible party for the acts of a number of its
own employees and elected officials for violation of federal laws. Plaintiff CNA and its owner, John
C. Cheeks (Cheeks), are the plaintiffs who were and are currently being injured by the unlawful acts
complained of herein. Five (5) contracts for which Plaintiff CNA was the low bidder were subject to
bid-rigging using interlocking directorates through continuing conspiracies between co-bidders. CNA
is totally owned by its stockholder Cheeks and was the original successful low bidder on a number of
the contracts described herein after. For those contracts, the awards were withdrawn by the coconspirators through the unlawful acts of the DC contracting officials and of D.C. WASA. a private
non-governmental corporation.
28. At all times relevant hereto, responsible oversight Defendant officials/employees and elected
Defendant officials of DC with ultimate oversight authority, were aware or should have been aware of
the on-going conspiracy to redirect the bids to award contracts. On information and belief they did this
in exchange for various favors and monetary benefits to themselves or co-conspirators.
10
334
29. On information and belief, the violations described herein apply to infrastructure contracts.
Infrastructure contracting is defined as companies supplying services relating to (below ground
utilities) water, sewer, roads (non-highways or highways), bridges (non-highways or highways),, above
ground utilities, traffic control, sidewalks, and storm water management systems . The total budgetary
contracts in 2009 for DC were estimated at $400 million dollars. ARRA issued infrastructure funding
to the District of Columbia. for fiscal year 2010.
30. The five (5) contracts were wrongfully awarded to the co-conspirators. Those contracts are continuing
with harm to the public because of overpricing and enrichment of the co-conspirators. In addition to
the damages requested herein, which approximates $360 million, plaintiff requests immediate
injunctive relief voiding the (5) contracts and awarding those contracts from this time forward to the
plaintiff CNA as the rightful recipient of award of the contracts.
31. Also, it appears that the oversight function and management of these on-going contracts can not be
continued with the District of Columbias existing contract managers who were party to the original
unlawful acts. That course of action would merely continue and increase the magnitude of the
unlawful acts.
32. The court is requested to consider assignment of a special master or other managing agency subject to
the control of this court as a substitute for the District of Columbias responsibility for administration
of these contracts.
11
335
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

33. This Court has jurisdiction to hear the merits of Plaintiffs claims because this action arises under the
Sherman Antitrust Act 15 U.S.C 1 et seq., and jurisdiction over the related state law claims, which
arise out of the same body of facts, is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1367 and the principles of supplemental
jurisdiction. 15 U.S.C. 26 grants the Court the power to award injunctive relief with respect to private
defendants (as here). Federal claims (violations of 15 U.S.C.) grant jurisdiction to provide redress over
those federal violations under 28 U.S.C. 1331.
34. The amount of this controversy far exceeds the jurisdictional requirement for a lawsuit herein ($75,000
minimum).
35. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1391, and 15 U.S.C 4. All references in
this Complaint to specific statutes, codes and regulations include any successors to those statutes codes,
and regulations.
36. All of the unlawful acts occurred in the District of Columbia. Plaintiff is located in the District of
Columbia.
III. PARTIES
37. Plaintiff Cheeks of North America, Inc. (aka CNA) from herein, during the time in question, August
20,2008 to September 25, 2009, is a District of Columbia corporation (See Exhibit
C.1.1) with its principal office located at Suite 350, 1425 K Street NW. Washington D.C. 20005,
CNA is a business engaged primarily in specialized purchasing, contacting, infrastructure contractor,
Strategic business planning or development specialists and consultant of manufacturing facilities
12
336
(building or infrastructure materials)for economic challenged countries outside the United States.. John
C. Cheeks is the founder and President of the corporation.
38. Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation, during August 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009
with Defendant (s)Francisco Rodrigues Neto (Vice President), Jose Rodrigues (President, Owner),
Lewis Shrensky (Treasurer, Secretary and Board of Directors). Defendant Fort Myer Construction
Corporation is a Commonwealth of Virginia corporation registered to conduct business in the District
of Columbia as a foreign corporation and has 12 Affirmative Action points as a District of Columbia
Certified Business Enterprises(CBE) (formerly Local, Small and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
(LSDBE), or Department of Small and Local Business Development. to compete for District of
Columbia Government and non- District of Columbia Government contracts has a place of business at
2237 33rd Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20018 (See Exhibit C.2.1.).
39. Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation has or had a management level or standard office
employee, George Batista, who participates in contractual or field/assembly estimating and/or pricing
of cost to the public customers or private customers for infrastructure services during time in question:
August 20,2008 thru September 25, 2009.
40. During this time in question, Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation (FMCC) was engaged
in infrastructure construction (See Exhibits D.9,and D.10). Infrastructure is defined as companies
supplying services relating to water, sewer, roads, bridges, traffic control, sidewalks, and other above
or below round utilities..
13
337
41. Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation, during August 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009, Jose
Rodrigues (Board of Directors), Defendant Francisco Rodrigues (Board of Directors). Defendant
Cristina R. Gregorio, (Board of Directors), Defendant Florentino Gregorio, (aka Flortino Gregorio)
President, Secretary and Board of Directors).
42. Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation is a District of Columbia corporation with 12 Affirmative
Action points as a District of Columbia Certified Business Enterprises(CBE) (formerly Local, Small
and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (LSDBE). to compete for District of Columbia Government
and non- District of Columbia Government contracts with its principal place of business at 2254 25th
Place, N.E, Washington, D.C.. During the time period in question, Defendant Anchor (Anchor)
Construction Corporation was engaged in general horizontal construction and contracting, including,
but not limited to, residential construction, commercial construction and public works projects(See
Exhibits C.3.1).
43. Defendant Civil Construction, L.L.C. during August 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009; employed
Lewis Shrensky, (Board of Directors), Jose Rodriguez (Board of Directors).
44. Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. is a Maryland corporation licensed to conduct business in the
District of Columbia as a foreign corporation, and has 12 Affirmative Action points as a District of
Columbia Certified Business Enterprises(CBE) (formerly Local, Small and Disadvantaged Business
Enterprises (LSDBE) or Department of Small and Local Business Development. It purportedly
competes for District of Columbia Government and WASA contracts. It has a place of business at
2413 Schuster Drive, Cheverly, MD 20781. During this time in question, Defendant Civil Construction
L.L.C. (Civil) was engaged in the construction business (See Exhibit C.4.1).
14
338
45. Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc. (Capital Paving of D.C. Inc), during August 20, 2008 to
September 25, 2009, Defendant Francisco R. Neto, (President, Treasurer and Board of Directors).
Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc., (See Exhibit C.5.1) is a District of Columbia corporation, and has 12
Affirmative Action points as a District of Columbia Certified Business Enterprises(CBE) (formerly
Local, Small and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (LSDBE) or Department of Small and Local
Business Development. to compete for District of Columbia Government and non- District of
Columbia Government contracts with its principal place of business at 2211 Channing Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20018. During the time period in question, Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc., (Capitol)
was engaged in general and specialty construction contract business (See Exhibit C.5.4 and C.5.3.
46. Defendant A&M Concrete Corp. during September 25, 2009 until December 5, 2009 was a
Commonwealth of Virginia corporation and contractor bidding on District of Columbia Government
infrastructure, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funded projects (IFB
DCKA-2009-B-0193 by the United States Government..
47. Defendant Joe Alves is the Executive Vice President (See Exhibit M .7.1) of A&M Concrete Corp.(A
and M) located at 43760 Trade Center Pl. , Suite #160,Dulles, VA 20166.
48. Defendant Alexandra Batista is the Administrative Assistant (See Exhibit M .7.1 ) of A & M
Concrete Corporation..
49. Defendant Western Surety Company (Western), is a commercial fidelity surety bond company.
50. Defendant Paul T. Bruflat, is a Senior Vice President of Western. (See Exhibit J.3). Western is
located at 101 South Phillips Avenue , Sioux Falls, SD 57104, (See Exhibit J.4), during August 20,
2008 to June 20, 2009 (See Exhibit J.3).
15
339
51. Defendant District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DCWASA) and its General Counsel,
during the period August 20, 2008 through March 25, 2009, had its principal place of business at 5000
Overlook Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20032.
52. Defendant District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, Procurement Department;
(hereinafter referred to as DCWASA-PD), during the period August 20, 2008 through March 25,
2009, was part of an non-government independent private utilities company funded by US Government
agencies and the government of the District of Columbia with its principal place of business located at
5000 Overlook Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20032.
53. During the time period in question D.C.WASA-PD was engaged in managing water and sewage
projects for residential, commercial, government and institutional et al use in the District of Columbia.
Key employees, current or past of DCWASA were or are: Jerry Johnson, former General Manager, and
Carlo Enciso, Senior Construction, Contract Administrator (See Exhibit F.1.9).
54. Current or past Chairman, William M. Walker and Neil Albert, Member of the Board of Directors of
the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (hereinafter referred to as DCWASA-BOD), a
non-governmental utility company, are sued in their individual capacity for unlawful actions for the
period of August 20, 2008 through March 25, 2009.
55. DCWASA-BOD is an independent private utility company funded by US Government agencies and
the government of the District of Columbia with its principal place of business located at 5000
Overlook Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20032. During the time period in question, DCWASA-BOD
was engaged in voting on water and sewage projects for residential, commercial, government and
16
340
institutional and other use in the District of Columbia, These actions are alleged to be contrary to the
bylaws of DCWASA-BOD, 34-2202.05 (See Exhibits F.1.2 and G.1.3)
56. Defendant District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, Retail Services Committee,
(hereinafter referred to as DCWASA-RSC), a private non-governmental utility company, (See
Exhibit G.3.8) during the period August 20, 2008 through March 25, 2009 were part of an independent
private utility company funded by US Government agencies and the government of the District of
Columbia with its principal place of business located at 5000 Overlook Avenue, SW, Washington,
D.C. 20032. During the time period in question, DCWASA-RSC was engaged in final voting of water
and sewage projects for residential, commercial, government and institutional et al use in the District of
Columbia. Article V 5.01, (viii) of the bylaws of DCWASA. The actions of the Retail Services
Committee violated 15 U.S.C. sec. 1. The (current or past) members responsible for these violations
are: Joseph Cotruvo, Chairmen (See Exhibits G.1.1,G.1.3, G.1.5, G.2.1, G.3.1, and G.3.2). These
persons are sued in their individual capacity.
57. DCWASA-PD, DCWASA-BOD and DCWASA-RSC, (collectively hereinafter referred to as
DCWASA, a non-governmental utility company), during the period August 20, 2008 through March
25, 2009, was an independent private utility company funded by US Government agencies and the
government of the District of Columbia with its principal place of business located at 5000 Overlook
Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20032. During the time period in question, DCWASA was engaged in
managing water and sewage projects for the District of Columbia (See Exhibits F.2.1 and E.1.7).
58. Defendant District of Columbia, Department of Public Works, Office of Contracting and
Procurement, 2000 14th St. NW, Sixth floor, Washington, D.C. 2009, a District of Columbia
17
341
government agency, during the period December 20, 2008 through December 30, 2008, James
Roberts, Contracting Officer (See Exhibit H.5.1).
59. Defendant Government of the District of Columbia, Department of Transportation, during
October 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009; Jerry M. Carter, Contracting Officer (See Exhibit D.20.1);
Gabe Klein, District Department of Transportation Director (See Exhibit F.7.1) (Time in Question:
January 29,2009 through June 22, 2009 ; and David P. Gragan, Chief Procurement Officer (See
Exhibit F.7).
60. Defendant District of Columbia Council Committee on Public Works and Transportation (See
Exhibit F.4.1), 1350 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 116, Washington D.C. 2004, during, Oct 20, 2008 to
September 25, 2009.
61. Defendant Jim Graham, Chairperson (Ward 1 Council Member) (See Exhibit F.5.1)District of
Columbia Council Committee on Public Works and Transportation; 1350 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite
116, Washington D.C. 2004, during, Oct 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009
62. Defendant Ted G. Loza, Chief of Staff for Jim Graham, District of Columbia Council Member of
Ward 1 and Chairperson of District of Columbia Council, Committee on Public Works and
Transportation, during time in question, October 20,2008 to September 24,2009, at 1350 Pennsylvania
Ave NW, Suite 116, Washington D.C. 20004.
63. Defendant Steven Hernndez , (Legislative and Budget Director), District of Columbia Council of
Public Works and Transportation 350 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 116, Washington D.C. 2004,
during, Oct 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009.
18
342
64. Defendant, The Executive Office of the Mayor, (See Exhibits F.8.28, F.8.29) 1350 Pennsylvania Ave
NW, Suite 316, Washington, D.C. 20004, during tine in question August 20, 2008 through October 7,
2009, is the executive office and governance authority of the District of Columbia.
65. Defendant Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, (D) (See Exhibits F.8.19,F.8.20, F.8.21 and F.8.115) of 1350
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 316, Washington, D.C. 20004, during time in question August 20, 2008
through October 7, 2009. The Mayor, Adrian M. Fenty has the executive authority and oversight
approval of all District of Columbia agencies, which are funded by the U.S. Government (See Exhibit
F.8.116).
66. Defendant District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General , 441 4th Street, NW, Suite 1145S,
Washington, DC 20001 during time in question August 20, 2008 through October 7, 2009. The Office
of Attorney General has the authority for oversight and enforcement laws of the District of Columbia
agencies and citizens.
67. Defendant District of Columbia ,Peter Nickles, Attorney General of the District of Columbia , 441
4th Street, NW, Suite 1145S, Washington, DC 20001 during time in question August 20, 2008 through
October 7, 2009. The Office of Attorney General has the authority for oversight and enforcement laws
of the District of Columbia
68. Upon information and belief at all times herein relevant, Defendant Jose Rodriguez (aka Jose
Rodrigues) was Director of Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation during the time period in
question. Upon information and belief Jose Rodriguez (aka Jose Rodrigues) was the principal owner,
president, and director of FMCC during the time period in question. Upon information and belief Jose
19
343
Rodriguez was a Principal Manager of Defendant Civil Construction, L. L. C. during the time period in
question.
69. Upon information and belief at all times herein relevant, Defendant Florentino Gregorio was President
and a member of the Board of Directors of Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation during the
time period in question.
70. Upon information and belief at all times herein relevant, Defendant Cristina R. Gregorio was a member
of the Board of Directors of Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation during the time period in
question.
71. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lewis Shrensky during the time period in question during,
August 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009 was the Secretary, Treasurer, Director, and Registered Agent
of FMCC during the time period in question. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lewis Shrensky
was the Principal Manager, Owner or Acting Director of Defendant Civil Construction, L.L. C during
the time period in question (See Exhibit C.4.10).
72. Upon information and belief, Defendant Executive Office of the Mayor, also Defendant, Adrian M.
Fenty, Mayor of the District of Columbia (Dem.) during the time period in question, August 20, 2008
through September 25, 2009.
73. Upon information and belief, Defendant Francisco Rodriquez Neto during the time period in question,
August 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009, was the Vice President and a Director of FMCC which
became Civil Construction L.L.C. (See Exhibit C.4.3 ) during the time period in question.
20
344
74. Upon information and belief, Defendant Francisco Rodriquez Neto (aka Francisco Rodrigues Neto,)
was a Director of Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation during the time period in question,
August 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009. Upon information and belief, Defendant Francisco Rodriquez
Neto was the President, Treasurer and a Director of Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc. Inc. during the time
period in question.
75. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jerry N. Johnson (Past Employee) was the General Manager
for DCWASA (See Exhibits G.1.3, G.1.8 and G.3.8), a non-government independent utility company,
during the time period in question, August 20, 2008 to June 20, 2009.
76. Defendant Western Surety, Co./CNA, Surety Claims (Western) at 101 South Phillips Avenue, Sioux
Falls, SD 57104, during the time period in question: August 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009 was the
underwriter for the defendants bid bonds: Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Anchor Construction
Corporation and Civil Construction L.L.C..
77. Upon information and belief Defendant William M. Walker, of the Defendant (s) District of Columbia
Water and Sewer Authority Chairman of the Board of Directors of DCWASA-BOD (See Exhibits
G.3.1, G.3.4 and B.3.6), a non-government independent utility company, and member of the Retail
Services Committee during the time period in question: August 20, 2008 to June 20, 2009 and was the
person ultimately responsible for DCWASAs part of the unlawful actions.
78. Upon information and belief Defendant Neil Albert, of the District of Columbia was a principal
member of the Board of Directors of DCWASA-BD (See Exhibits F.1.1. and F.1.2), a nongovernment independent utility company, during the time period in question: August 20, 2008 to June
20, 2009.
21
345
79. Upon information and belief Defendant District of Columbia Department of Small and Local Business
Development officials endorsed and registered primary Defendant (s) Fort Myer Construction
Corporation, Anchor Construction Corporation, Civil Construction L.L.C. and Capitol Paving of D.C.
Inc with affirmative action preference points to bid on District of Columbia and non - District of
Columbia Government IFB soliciitations for a point or percentage of price reduction on final bid price
on all sealed IFB s, during the time period in question: August 20, 20008 through September 25,
20009.
80. Upon information and belief Defendant Joseph Cotruvo, was or is Chairman of the Retail Services
Committee of DCWASA-RSC (See Exhibits F.2.9, G.1.12, G.2.1, G.3.4 and G.3.12), a nongovernment independent utility company, during the time period in question from August 20, 2008 to
May 15, 2009.
22
346
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS

81. All of the factual statements above are incorporated by this reference.
82. CNA is a minority (Afro-American), founded and owned company (See Exhibit C.1.1 and C.1.4).
Although qualified, Plaintiff did not have the benefits of minority certification such as US SBA 8A,
LSDBE (D.C.), or Department of Small and Local Business Development, or any other state or
government agency issued affirmative action certifications with preference points necessary to
effectively compete for IFB contracts at District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority and the
District of Columbia, Department of Transportation.
Facts on Disputed IFB Solicitations

83. The Plaintiff, Cheeks of North America, aka CNA, Inc. participated in 6 solicitations for bids: (3)
issued by DCWASA, total value of the IFBs won was $19,012,100.00, from August 20, 2008 to May
15, 2009, and (2) Government of the District of Columbia, Department of Transportation (DCDOT):
one for a total of $54,552,805.00 from October 20, 2008 through March 25, 2009, and one for a total
of $2,376,095.90 (corrected bid) from September 4, 2009 to September 25,2009. Total DCDOT IFBs
Plaintiff CNA Inc. was lowest bidder during March 25, 2009 thru September 29, 2009 was
$56,928,900.90 .
84. Plaintiff CNA also participated in (1) IFB solicitation for D.C. Department of Public Works
(DCDPW), IFB DCKT-2009-B-0003 and was the lowest bidder in the amount of $ 3,639,901.00 from
Dec 20, 2008 to Dec 30, 2008. Total value of IFB solicitations during the time period August 20, 2008
through September 25,2009 was $ 79,580,901.90 (seventy nine million, five hundred eighty thousand,
and nine hundred one dollars and ninety cents) .
23
347
85. Plaintiff was the lowest bidder participating in IFB solicitations for Defendant (s) District of Columbia
Water and Sewer Authority, District of Columbia Department of Transportation and District of
Columbia Department of Public Works.
86. Plaintiff CNA is listed on recorded Bid Tabulations for IFB solicitations for Defendant (s) District of
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, District of Columbia Department of Transportation and District
of Columbia Department of Public Works as follows:
i. DCWASA IFB # 080020
CNA bid $11,154,500.00 (lowest bidder)
ii. DCWASA IFB # 090080
CNA bid
$5,040,000.00 (corrected filed lowest bidder)
iii. DCWASA IFB # 090020
CNA bid
$2,817,600.00 (2nd lowest bidder)
iv. DOT
DCKA-2009-B-0025 CNA bid $54, 252,805.00 (lowest corrected bidder)
v. DOT DCKA-2009-B-0193
CNA bid
$2,376,095.90 (4th lowest corrected bidder)
vi. DPW DCKT-2009-B-0003
CNA bid
$3,639,901.00 (lowest bidder)
i. See Exhibit D.9.1

ii. See Exhibit D.9.2
iii See Exhibit D.9.3
iv. See Exhibit D.10.3
v. See Exhibit D.11.1
vi. See Exhibit D.11.3
87. Plaintiff CNAs project estimator, John C. Cheeks has the authority of assembling and estimating all
costs for IFB solicitations for competitive sealed bids, submitted to DCWASA: IFB # 080020
Replacement of Small Diameter Priority Water Mains for 2008 Construction, IFB # 090080 Sewer
Liner Replacement, and IFB # 090020 Fire Hydrant Replacement.
24
348
88. Plaintiff s project estimator, John C. Cheeks has the authority of assembling bids from subcontractors
and vendors for estimating all costs for IFB solicitations for competitive sealed bids, submitted to
District of Columbia Department of Transportation: DCKA-2009-B-0025, Pavement Restoration CityWide and District of Columbia Department of Public Works solicitation IFB DCKT-2009-B-0003,
On-Site Preventive Maintenance Services.
89. Plaintiff CNA uses fair business practices competing for Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority, District of Columbia Department of Transportation, and District of Columbia
Department of Public Works IFB solicitations. (See Exhibit C.1.10)
90. Plaintiff CNA, as an independent company, assigned one individual as lead project estimator (John C.
Cheeks) to compete against named Defendants; Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation,
Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc, Defendant Civil
Construction L.L.C. and other companies herein alleged to be working in concert (See Exhibit M.1.2,
M.5.5, and M.6.6) on various IFB solicitations for DCWASA and DCDOT in the time period in
question, August 20, 2008 through March 28, 2009, AD.
91. Defendants Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation,
Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc., Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. during time period
August 20, 2008 through March 25, 2009 participated in the (15) afore-listed IFB solicitations. In those
solicitations, officers, directors, owners, and managers engaged all of these companies in strategizing
and colluding schemes against Plaintiff.
25
349
92. DCWASA
IFB # 080020
On August 20, 2008, Plaintiff CNA submitted a bid in response to DCWASAs IFB for Bid # 080020
entitled: Replacement of Small Diameter Priority Water Mains for 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the
IFB). Plaintiff proposed to furnish all plant, labor, materials, and equipment to perform the work set
forth in the IFB in consideration for payment from DCWASA of the total sum of $11,154,500. 00 (See
Exhibit D.9.1).
93. Submitted with the above CNA bid was a bid bond of $557,725.00 representing 5% of the bid (See
Exhibit D.7). The bond was submitted in the form of a company check (See Exhibit D.7.5).
94. Simultaneously, Defendant Western issued guaranteed bid bonds on behalf of the Defendant
construction companies for the beneficial interest of DCWASA. Upon information and belief,
Defendant construction companies were all guaranteed under the same surety bond company.
95. On August 20, 2008 at approximately 2:19 p.m. at the bid room located at Central Operations Facility,
5000 Overlook Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. the bids for the IFB were opened by DCWASA
procurement officer, Carlo Enciso.
96. According to the bid call the seven competing companies; bids were announced as follows:
i.
$12,263,000.00 Sagres Construction
ii.
$18,780,139.00 Flippo Construction
iii
$13,012,300.00 Civil Construction L.L.C.
iv.
$11,154,500.00 CNA, Inc.
v.
$11,997,930.00 Anchor Construction Corporation
vi.
$23,735,830.00 Corinthian Contractors
26
350
vii.
$12,850,422.99 Fort Myer Construction Corporation
viii. $13,277,000.00 Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.

97. Immediately following the bid call, CNA was announced as the lowest bidder. On September 9,
2008, nearly three weeks after being awarded he bid, Plaintiff received a letter from DCWASA,
informing CNA that: The District of Colombia Water and Sewer Authority (DCWASA) has
declared that your bid submitted on August 20, 2008 to be Non-Responsive and therefore not
eligible for award. An element considered in this decision was that your bid did not include a
completed Bid Bond with sureties or certified check(s) for 5% of the bid amount (See Exhibit
H.1.1).
98. On September 28, 2009, CNA filed a Bid Protest on the grounds of bid-rigging, discrimination,
failure to give adequate notice and failure to give time to cure compliance issues. In its protest,
CNA requested an equitable allotted time to reissue the bid bond to DCWASA and requested
DCWASA reinstate the award to CNA (See Exhibit K.1.1).
99. On November 6, 2008, the approval to execute Contract # 080020 was granted to Defendant
Anchor Construction Corporation (See Exhibit G.1.11). At no point in time was CNA provided the
opportunity to rectify the minor deficiency in its bid as required by The DCWASA Procurement
Regulations 5321(See Exhibit E.1.17). Plaintiff has taken all reasonable approaches and methods
to mitigate damages by suspending all work , refraining from submitting bids to other construction
bidding process, and seeking the appropriate administrative remedies. Since those remedies are
now exhausted, Plaintiff has no recourse but to file this action.
27
351
Other Bid Results

100.
DCWASA IFB # 090080
Sewer Liner Replacement March 25, 2009, DCWASA IFB # 090080.

101.
DCWASA failed to respond to CNAs bid protest, (See Exhibits, K.2.1 and K.2.2).
Company
Bid Amount
i.
Fort Myer Construction Corporation*
$ 7,484,160.00
ii. Anchor Construction Corporation*
$ 7,784,704.00
iii. Flippo Construction Company Inc.**
$ 6,605,360.00
iv. Civil Construction, L.L.C.*
$ 7,974,540.00
v. Corinthian Construction Corporation** $ 6,424,140.00
Vi Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.*
$ 7,675 200.00
Vii CNA***
$ 5,040,000.00
* Affiliated Companies
** Others in question, affiliated with Defendants
*** filed Protest to correct bid contingency items by DCWASA.
102.
DCWASA IFB # 090020
Fire Hydrant Replacement, BOD 5/7/09

DCWASA allowed several of the bidders listed below to violate the Non-Collusion Affidavit
Company
i.
Fort Myer Construction Corporation*
ii.
Civil Construction, L.L. C.*
iii. Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.*
iv. Flippo Construction Company, Inc.**
v.
Corinthian Contractors, Inc.**
Vi Sagres Construction Corporation**
Vii Anchor Construction Corporation*
Viii Nastos Construction**
Ix
CNA
X
ODonnell Construction Company
28
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Bid Amount
3,126,150.00
3,251,880.00
3,323,760.00
4,199,370.00
3,328,400.00
3,376,550.00
3,301,775.00
2,703,160.00
2,817,600.00
3,108,000.00
352
103.
DOT DCKA-2009-B-0025
Pavement Restoration City-Wide
The D.C. Department of Transportation allowed companies to violate the Non-Collusion

Agreement.
Company
i.
Fort Myer Construction Corporation* $
ii.
Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.*
$
iii. Senate Asphalt**
$
iv. CNA
$
Bid Amount
68,568,650.40
78,882,475.00
88,911,499.55
54,651,150.00
104. In addition See Eleventh Count

105. DOT DCKA-2009-B-0193 Safe Routes to Schools
Company
i.
Omni Excavators**
ii.
Potomac Construction Co.**
iii. CNA
iv. Fort Myer Construction Corporation*
v.
Capitol Paving of D.C *
Vi Civil Construction, L.L. C.*
Vii Anchor Construction Corporation*
Viii A & M Concrete **
Ix
Prince Construction, Co.**
* corrected bid
1
Corrected bid
29
Bid Amount
$ 2,315,830.00
$ 2,249.280.00
$ 2,376,095.901
$ 2,338,405.00
$ 2,341,770.00
$ 2,415,255.00
$ 2,161,446.00
$ 2,682,519.351
$ 2,440,235.00
353
FIRST COUNT: VIOLATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST

ACT, AFFILIATED COMPANIES BIDDING FEDERALLY FUNDED
INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRACTS
First Count Defendants:
Fort Myer Construction Corporation;
2237 33rd St. N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20018
Anchor Construction Corporation
2254 25th Place. N.E.
;
Civil Construction, L.L.C.
2413 Schuster Drive,
Cheverly, MD, 20781
Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.
2211 Channing St. N.E.
106.
In pursuant of Section 1 of the Sherman Anti- Trust ,Act 15 U.S.C. 1 Plaintiff asserts
the following:
107.
Time in question August 20, 2008 through September 25, 2009.
108.
Plaintiff reasserts all prior allegations as though they were stated herein.
109.
Plaintiff sustained damages when Defendants engaged in a bid-rigging conspiracy.
110. Plaintiff asserts that the bid-rigging conspiracy violates section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust
Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.
30
First Count
354
111.
Defendants actions in this counts are defined as:

i. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise or conspiracy, in restraint
of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, is declared to
be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or
conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and , on
conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine, not exceeding $100,000,000.00 if a
corporation, or if any other person, $1,000,000.00, or by imprisonment not exceeding
10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000001----000-.html. Cornell
University Law School quoting US Code Title 15, 15 U.S.C.A. 1.
112.
In order to bring a private claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act, a Plaintiff must
show three elements: (1) an agreement, conspiracy, or combination among two or more
persons or distinct business entities; (2) which is intended to harm or unreasonably restrain
competition; and (3) which actually causes injury to competition, beyond the impact on the
claimant, within a field of commerce in which the claimant is engaged (i.e., an antitrust
injury'). McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 1988).
113.
Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, "every contract, combination in the form of trust or
otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce is declared to be illegal. 15

U.S.C. 1
.
31
First Count
355
114.
Therefore, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act prohibits concerted action in "unreasonable"
restraint of trade, and, some concerted actions are considered so presumptively and
perniciously anti-competitive as to constitute "per se" violations of the antitrust statute. In
that case the court may curtail its review of the relevant industry and the impact of the
alleged restraint, and effectively reduces the evidence required to prove an antitrust violation.
"Bid-rigging," as alleged by Plaintiff in the instant action, is a per se violation. United States
v. Sergeant Elec. Co., 785 F.2d 1123, 1127 (3d Cir. 1986).
115.
Defendant Construction Companies engaged in a bid-rigging conspiracy (See Exhibit
A.3) by submitting collusive bids to make the winning bid on the IFB submitted by
Defendant Anchor appear competitive and reasonable.
116.
Defendants DCWASA-BOD, DCWASA-PD, and DCWASA-RSC, District Department
of Transportation (DDOT) Committee on Public Works and Transportation (CPWT), of the

D.C. Council, aided and abetted such conspiracy by accepting and ultimately awarding the
bid on the IFB to one of the conspiring companies, when DCWASA, DDOT, D.C. Council,
and Defendant Western Surety had actual knowledge that Defendant companies shared
common ownership and/or interlocking Directors.
117.
Defendant Western engaged in the bid-rigging conspiracy by securing the bid bond(s) for
all of the Defendant Construction Companies on a separate or single bond when they knew or
should have known that the Defendant Construction Companies were engaged in collusive
anti-competitive practices made possible by Defendant Westerns bond guarantees to District
32
First Count
356
of Columbia Department of Transportation and Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water

and Sewer Authority Contract Officers.
118. Jose Rodriquez is a Director of Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation (See, Exhibit
C.3.8 ) . Jose Rodriquez is also the Principal Owner of FMCC (See Exhibit C.4.10), as well
as the President and a Director of FMCC (See Exhibit C.4.10). Additionally, Jose Rodriquez
is one of the principal managers of Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. (See Exhibit C.4.10).
119. Upon information and belief, G&G Development and Paving Company changed its name to
C&F Construction Company (See Exhibit C.3.12). C&F Construction then became
Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation (See Exhibits C.3.1 and C.3.2).
120. Defendant Lewis F. Shrensky is the Secretary, Treasurer, Director and Registered Agent of
FMCC(See, Exhibits C.4.9 and C.4.10). Additionally, Defendant Lewis F. Shrensky is one of
the principal managers of Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. (See Exhibit C.4.10). Upon
information and belief, Defendant Lewis Shrensky was an equitable owner of Flippo
Construction during the time period in question.
121. Defendant Francisco Rodriguez Neto is a Director of Defendant Anchor Construction
Corporation (See Exhibit
C.3.8). Defendant Francisco Rodriquez Neto is also the Vice
President and a Director of Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation (See Exhibit
C.2.4). Furthermore, Defendant Francisco Rodriguez Neto is the President, Treasurer and a
Director of Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.. (See Exhibit C.5.3).
122. Defendant Florentino Gregorio is President and member of the Board of Directors of
Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation/
33
First Count
357
123. Defendant Cristina R. Gregorio is a member of the Board of Directors of Defendant Anchor
Construction Corporation and the daughter of Jose Rodrigues (aka Jose Rodriguez See
Exhibit C for companies)
124. On August 20, 2008, Plaintiff CNA submitted a bid in response to the IFB. Plaintiff proposed
to furnish all plant, labor, materials, and equipment to perform the work set forth in the IFB
in consideration for payment from DCWASA of the total sum of $11,154,500.00 (See Exhibit
D.9.1) Note, that upon request by Plaintiff, this was the most current Two Year Report
provided by the Government of the District of Columbia, Department of Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs.
125. At no point in time, Plaintiff CNA was provided the opportunity to rectify the minor
deficiency in its bid as required by the Regulation.
126. As a result of the Defendants conduct described above, competition in the relevant market
has injured CNA. Plaintiff has sustained monetary damages, damage to its reputation, and
loss of goodwill, and taxpayers have lost the benefit of competition in the relevant market.
127. The Defendants, through their bid-rigging conspiracy, prevented Plaintiff CNA from winning
the IFB that the Defendants had evidently allocated to themselves, by submitting the bids as
if they were from separate entities when, in fact, the so-called competing bids were submitted
by companies with overlapping and common equity interest.
Summary of Contracts Obtained by Illegal Means

and Joint and Several Liability by Principal Defendant Corporations
128.
34
First Count
358
B. DCWASA IFB # 090080

i. Fort Myer Construction ,Corp.
ii. Anchor Construction Corp
iii. Civil Construction, LLC
iv. Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc.
Plaintiff's IFB Contract Bid,

$11,154,500.00 times 3.
$33,463,500.00
$33,463,500.00
$33,463,500.00
$33,463,500.00
$5,040,000.00 times 3.
$15,120,000.00
$15,120,000.00
$15,120,000.00
$15,120,000.00
C. DCWASA IFB # 090020

iv Capitol Paving of D.C, Inc.

$2,817,600.00 times 3.
$8,452,800.00
$8,452,800.00
$8,452,800.00
$8,452,800.00
D. DOT IFB #DCKA-2009-B-0025

ii Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.

$54,252,805.00 times 3.
$162,758,415.00
$162,758,415.00
E. DOT IFB #DCKA-2009-B-0193

$2,376,095.90 times 3.
Fort Myer Construction Corporation

Capitol Paving of D.C
Civil Construction, L.L. C.
$7,128,287.70
$7,128,287.70
$7,128,287.70
$7,128,287.70
A. DCWASA IFB # 080020

iv. Capitol Paving of D.C, Inc.
Conclusion
35
First Count
359
129. Defendant (s) listed all jointly violated every United States Anti Trust Laws designed to
protect all whom compete with fair business ethics and prevented Plaintiff from having
gainful business opportunity.
130. Plaintiffs injury can be repaired by means of financial restitution from all Defendants in
this Count but additional innjunctive relief is also required to terminate the irreparable harm
and the continuing unlawful acts.
Summary of Liability By Principal Defendant Contractors

131. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1 and 15, relief stated, Plaintiff prays for amount of damage award
to be paid all or in part by Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation on this Count in
the amount of $ 226,923,002.70 .
to be paid all or in part by Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation on this Count in the
amount of $ 64,164,587.70.
to be paid all or in part by Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. on this Count in the amount
of $ 64,164,587.70.
to be paid all or in part by Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc on this Count in the
amount of $ 226,923,002.70.
36
First Count
360
to be paid all or in part by each Defendant named on this Count, in the amount of $
582,175,180.80.
136. All of foregoing requests for damage awards and relief are requested or in such other sum as
the court determines is just and equitable in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1 through 15, or
as otherwise just and equitable pursuant the other claims and counts in this case.
37
First Count
361
SECOND COUNT: VIOLATION OF SHERMAN ANTI - TRUST ACT BY A SURETY

COMPANY; ENDORSEMENT AND REGISTRAR ISSUANCE OF SURETY BID BOND
INSTRUMENT(S) FOR AFFILIATED DEFENDANT CUSTOMERS OR CLIENTS .
Defendant
Western Surety Company a Subsidiary Writing
Company of CNA Surety
101 South Phillips Avenue
Sioux Falls, SD 57104
137.
Time in Question August 20, 2009 through September 25, 2009.
138.
139.
Violations of law by Western Surety Company defined as:
i.
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1890 passed to combat anticompetitive practices,

reduce market domination by individual corporations, and preserve unfettered
competition as the rule of trade.
ii.
Surety Insurance Company A company that employs the use of guaranty insurance
(a.k.a. surety insurance):
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), insurance guaranty insurance.
iii.
Obligee one who is protected by a Surety bond (Source: Merriamwebster.com.

.
Surety - A person who is primarily liable for the payment of another's debt or the
iv.
performance of another's obligation. Source: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004),
surety.
v.
vi.
Principal - the party that requires the bond and on whose behalf the bond is written for.
Customer one that purchase a commodity or service
Source: Merriam- webster.com
38
Second Count
362
vii.
Client- a person who engages the professional advice or service of another

Source:Merriam-webster.com
viii.
Endorsement the act of endorsing the signature on a check, contract, instrument, or

other document endorsement.
ix.
Approbation - an act of approving formally or officially Source:Merriam-webster.com
x.
Registrar A person who keeps official records

Source:. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), registrar
xi.
.Bid Bond A bond filed in public construction projects to ensure that the bidding
contractor will enter into the contract. The bid bond is a type of performance bond..
Source: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), bond bid bond
140. Defendant Western Surety Company a Subsidiary Writing Company of CNA Surety
(Western Surety) a surety insurance company (See Exhibits J.4, J.5 and J.6) in the United
States of America and registrar of an endorsed financial instrument (Bid Bond) to (3)
Companies: Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation; Defendant Anchor
Construction Corporation; Defendant Civil Construction, L.L.C., (See Exhibit J.5) and
other companies in question, owned or affiliated by financial relationships and/or control
by one or more of the same persons, parties, directors, officers, and/or/owners known as
customers.
39
Second Count
363
141. Western Surety is the registrar issuer and endorser of a separate bid bond or single bid
bond(s) to the Defendants named, Defendant Fort Myer Construction; Defendant Anchor
Construction Corporation; Defendant Civil Construction, L.L.C. unilateral antitrust activity
by its customers at DCWASA (See Exhibit J.1), and DCDOT. Since Western surety was
the insurer for all four of the colluding companies, Western, through its underwriters and
officers knew, or should have known that it was insuring all of the bidders upon each of the
contracts.
142. Western therefore, knew or should have known, as a matter of established fact that the
companies were associated and had interlocking directorates. Therefore, the liability of
Western is inherent in the nature of its own duties (to investigate and prevent the very
unlawful acts in which Western participated and facilitated. Western was therefore a key
actor in the frauds committed which are described herein.
143. Western Surety gave customers/clients, (Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation;
Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation; Defendant Civil Construction, L.L.C., and
others in question) authority to compete with improper tactics to attain or maintain
monopoly status that violates US Antitrust monopoly and market power control with use of
their fidelity surety instrument(s), (bid bond(s)).
144. Western Surety fueled Defendants named (Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation;
Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation; Defendant Civil Construction, L.L.C.) with
fidelity surety bonds to control nearly 100 percent during time in question, August 20, 2008
40
Second Count
364
through September 25, 2009. Actions committed by Western Surety paralyzed, crippled
and created financial hardship(s) to Plaintiff in the following areas described:
i.Loss of goodwill to current employees and consultants for future earnings of wages or
contracts,
ii.Loss of goodwill and ability to repay investors, creditors, lien holders and operational
company agreements (See Exhibits N.1.6 and N.1.7),
iii. Loss of salary to sustain personal financial commitments by Executive Officer of
Plaintiff.
145.
In Pursuant of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (SEA) Plaintiff and Title 15,
Chapter 14B, Subchapter IV-A part B, 694b and 694c Resolving fund for Surety Bond
Guarantees Plaintiff states the following:
Loss of Profit and Earnings

146. A. Western Surety Company/CNA Surety : Plaintiffs Loss of Contract Profit
Earnings by joint monopoly tactics from customers/clients.
i. DCWASA IFB # 080020, $ 892,360.00 8% of Plaintiffs bid of $11,154,500.00
1. Fort Myer Construction Corporation $ 892,360.00
2. Anchor Construction Corporation
$ 892,360.00
3. Civil Construction L.L.C.
$ 892,360.00
4. Western Surety Company
$ 892,360.00
Total
41
Second Count
$3,569,440.00
365
ii. DCWASA IFB # 090080 $ 403,200.00 8% of Plaintiffs bid of

$ 5,040,00.00
$ 403,200.00
2. Fort Myer Construction Corporation $ 403,200.00

$ 403,200.00
$ 403,200.00
Total
$1,612,800.00
iii. DCWASA IFB # 090020 $ 225,408.00, 8% of Plaintiffs bid of $ 2,817,600.00.

$ 225,408.00
2. Fort Myer Construction Corporation
$ 225,408.00
$ 225,408.00
$ 225,408.00
Total
$ 901,632.00
Total Requested for A $ 5,633,242.20
42
Second Count
366
Non-Collusion Affidavit Violation

147.
B. Western Surety/CNA: Non-Collusion Affidavit (See Exhibit D.12) Violation of
Defendant Customer(s) and or Client(s) awarded contract through use of Fidelity Surety
Bond Instrument (s)
i. DCWASA IFB # 080020 (Anchor Construction Corporation)
$11,997,930.00
ii. DCKA-2009-B-0025 (Fort Myer Construction Corporation)
$68,568,650.40
iii. DCKA-2009-B-0193 (Anchor Construction Corporation)

Total Requested for B
$2,161,473.00
$ 82,728,053.40
Bid Bond Issuance to Defendant Customers

148.
C. Western Surety/CNA: for the Issuance of Surety Bond(s) or Surety Bond to each
Defendant customer/ client for participation and use of Surety Bond Instrument to bid on
IFB solicitations: Damages in the amount of 5% of Bid Bond of each contract.

a.. Fort Myer Construction Corporation 5% of
$12,850,422.99 = $642,521.15
b. Anchor Construction Corporation
5% of
$11,997,930.00 = $599,896.50
c. Civil Construction, L.L.C.
5% of
$13,012,300.00 = $650,615.00
Total 5% of $ 37,860,652.99 = 1,893,032.65

a. Fort Myer Construction Corporation
5% of $7,484,160.00 = $374,208.00
b. Anchor Construction Corporation
5% of $7,784,704.00 = $389,235.20
43
Second Count
367
5% of $7,974,540.00 = $398,727.00
c. Civil Construction, L.L.C.
Total 5% of $ 23,243,404.00 = $1,162,170.20

a. Anchor Construction Corporation
5% of $3,301,775.00 = $165,088.75
b. Civil Construction, L.L.C.
5% of $3,251,880.00 = $162,594.00
c. Fort Myer Construction Corporation 5% of $3,126,150.00 = $156,307.50

Total 5% of $ 9,679,805.00 = $483,990.25
Total for C:
$3,539,193.10
Conclusion
149. Defendant Western Surety Company/CNA and Defendant Paul T. Bruflat, Senior Vice
President jointly endorsed and registered all bid bonds for primary Defendant and affiliated
Defendant companies to violate United States Anti Trust laws which injured Plaintiff
severely financially, interfered with Plaintiffs economic gainful growth and destroyed
Plaintiffs financial growth.
150. Plaintiffs injury can be repaired by means of financial restitution from all Defendants
Western Surety Company and Defendant Paul T. Bruflat and by injunctive relief as to the
discontinuation of the subject unlawful contracts..
44
Second Count
368
Plea for Damage Awards

151. Plaintiff requests joint and several damages from Defendant Western Surety Company,
CNA Surety for profit loss of contract earnings by joint monopoly tactics from
customer/clients (A above) in the amount of $ 5,633,242.20.
CNA Surety for Non-Collusion Act Violation of Affidavit Agreement by Defendant
Customer(s) and or Client(s) awarded contracts through use of Fidelity Surety Bond
Instrument (s) (B above) in the amount of $ 82,728,053.40.
CNA Surety for the Issuance of Surety Bond(s) or Surety Bond to each Defendant
customer/ client for participation and use of Fidelity Surety instrument Bond to bid on IFB
solicitations (C above): $3,539,193.10.
154. Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of joint and several damages on this count from
Western Surety Company a Subsidiary Writing Company of CNA Surety or CNA Surety
Company all or part listed in this count of $ 91,900,488.70.
45
Second Count
369
THIRD COUNT: BID-RIGGING; CONSPIRACY OF RESTRAINT OF TRADE,

SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ANTI - TRUST ACT
Defendants:
2237 33rd St. N.E.
Cheverly, MD, 20781
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
5000 Overlook Ave. S.W.
2nd Floor
Procurement Department
2nd Floor
Board of Directors
2nd Floor
46
Third Count
370

Retail Services Committee
2nd Floor
Government of the District of Columbia
In Care of Office of Attorney General
For the District of Columbia
441 4th Street, NW, Suite 1145S
Washington, DC 20001
D.C. Department of Transportation

Office of Contracting and Procurement
2000 14th St. N.W.
6th Floor
DC Council Committee on Public Works and Transportation
1350 Penn. Ave. NW
Suite 116
Washington D.C. 20004
155. Time in question, August 20, 2008 through September 25, 2009.
156. Plaintiff reasserts all prior allegations as though they were stated herein.
157. Defendant District of Columbia
158. The District of Columbia has a duty follow federal law. It also has a duty to follow DC law.
Here, through its employees, officers and the Mayor himself, followed neither laws. What
it did was violate a myriad of duties to control the actions of its own agents, officials and
boards. It thereby became a part of the conspiracy which damaged the plaintiff and the
47
Third Count
371
public interest. DC in fact enabled the conspiracy in violation of 15 U.S.C. sec 1 et seq. to
become a reality by gross negligence and no oversight accountability.
159. Defendant District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority:
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority has a duty to follow federal law. It also
has a duty to follow DC law. Here, through the actions of its employees, officers and the
President, of this corporation, followed none of these applicable laws. What DC WASA did
was violate a myriad of duties to control the actions of its own agents, officials and boards.
It thereby became a part of the conspiracy which damaged the plaintiff and the public
interest. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority in fact enabled the conspiracy in
violation of 15 U.S.C. sec 1 et seq. to become a reality by gross negligence and no oversight
accountability of its operating officials.
160. Defendant(s) actions in this count are defined as:
Bid-rigging Conspiracy Under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act provision prohibiting
contracts, combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of trade and state law provisions
similar thereto, concerted action to eliminate competitive bidding through bid rigging is
illegal. Bid rigging is illegal per se.
48
Third Count
372
Bid rigging is an agreement between two or more persons to eliminate, reduce, or

interfere with competition for a job or contract that is to be awarded on the basis of bids.
It has been said that collusion is not a necessary element of bid rigging. Two persons are
treated as competitors, so that bid rigging by them is illegal per se, even if one of them
could not actually perform the contract. Bid rigging is illegal even if the costs and profit
of the job are reasonable. Source: CJS MONOPOLIES 102 Bid Rigging
161. In the instant case, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants made a conscious commitment to form
an illegal conspiracy, and that each Defendant took acts in furtherance of that conspiracy,
and that the conspiracy was the proximate cause of antitrust injury to Plaintiff.
162. Specifically, Defendant Construction Companies engaged in the illegal conspiracy by
engaging in a bid-rigging conspiracy with other Defendants: District of Columbia Water
and Sewer Authority, Procurement Department; District of Columbia Water and Sewer
Authority, Board of Directors; District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Retail
Services Committee; D.C. Department of Transportation, Office of Contracting and
Procurement; D.C. Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
163. DCWASA IFB solicitations: # 080020 (Replacement of Small Diameter Priority Water
Mains for 2008 Construction) $ 11,154.500.00; # 90080 (Sewer Liner Replacement)
$5,040,000.00. and # 090020, (Fire Hydrant Replacement) $2,817,600.00. DCWASA
engaged in the illegal conspiracy by accepting bids from Defendant Construction
Companies named Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor
Construction Corporation, Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C and Defendant Capitol
49
Third Count
373
Paving of D.C., Inc., when it had actual knowledge that the Defendant Construction
Companies shared common ownership in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1.
164. The bids involved are: DCDOT IFB solicitation DCKA-2009-B-0025 (Pavement
Restoration City-Wide), $54,252,805.00, and DCKA-2009-B-0193 (Safe Schools Route).
DCDOT was joined into the illegal conspiracy by accepting bids from Defendant
Construction Companies, Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation and Defendant
Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc. at a time when DCDOT key employees had actual knowledge
that the Defendant Construction Companies shared common ownership in violation of 15
U.S.C. 1. Those employees knew or should have known that the entire bidding process
was voided by this violation.
165. Defendant Western engaged in the illegal conspiracy by securing the bids for all of the
Defendant Construction Companies on a single or separate bond. (See Exhibit J.1)
166. Damage awards are requested from Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation,
Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation, Defendant Civil Construction LLC and
Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc., and DCWASA and others who are found to have
conspired in the restraint of trade claim. The following are the sum of the contract bids on
the DCWASA IFB solicitations:
# 080020
Plaintiffs Bid Amount $ 11.154.500.00
# 090080
Plaintiffs Bid Amount
$ 5,040,000.00
# 090020
$ 2, 817,600.00
Total
$ 19,012,100.00
50
Third Count
374
Conclusion
167.
The four Defendant contracting corporations designed and conducted a bid rigging
scheme through out all or most of their existence of doing business. Defendant procurement
members directed approval of participation through voting authority multiple times for other
Defendants. Plaintiff was injured each time by Defendants actions.
168.
Plaintiffs injury can be repaired by means of financial restitution from all Defendants
listed in this count coupled with the injunctive relief described above.
169.
Plaintiff prays for relief on this count for all or part of the amount of the three IFB Bids
totaling $ 19,012,100.00, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1 and 15. All of the seven responsible
Defendants shall be jointly and severely liable. Those Defendants are named as follows:
Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor Construction
Corporation, Defendant Civil Construction LLC and Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.,
DCWASA Board of Directors, DCWASA Procurement Department and DCWASA Retail
Services Committee and Defendant DCWASA as a whole.
170.
Plaintiff prays for relief on this count for all or part of the Plaintiffs bid for solicitations
i.
DCKA-2009-B-0025 Pavement Restoration City-Wide $ 54,552,805.00
ii. DCKA-2009-B-0193 Safe School Routes,
$2,341,770.00
$56,894,575.00
51
Third Count
375
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1 and 15. The Defendants, Fort Myer Construction Corporation,
Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc., and DCDOT, Office of Contracting and Procurement,
are alleged to be jointly and severely liable.
171.
Plaintiff prays for all or part from each Defendant named for a damage award on this
count in the amount of $ 78,248,445.01.

172.
All of foregoing requests for damage awards and relief are requested or in such other sum
as the court determines is just and equitable in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1 through 15, or
52
Third Count
376
FOURTH COUNT: PRICE FIXING

Count Defendants
2237 33rd St. N.E.
Cheverly, MD, 20781
173.
Pursuant to provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1, Plaintiff states:
174.
Time in question August 20, 2008 through September 25, 2009
175.
176.
Plaintiff sustained injuries when Defendants engaged in actions defined as:

i. Price Fixing The artificial setting or maintenance of prices at a certain level,
contrary to the workings of the free market. Price-fixing is usually illegal per se
under antitrust law.
ii. Price-fixing agreements may or may not be aimed at complete elimination of price
competition. The group making those agreements may or may not have the power to
control the market. But the fact that the group cannot control the market prices does
53
Fourth Count
377
not necessarily mean that the agreement as to prices has no utility to the members of
the combination. The effectiveness of price-fixing agreements is dependent on many
factors, such as competitive tactics, position in the industry, the formula underlying
price policies. Whatever economic justification particular price-fixing agreements
may be thought to have, the law does not permit an inquiry into their reasonableness.
They are all banned because of their actual or potential threat to the central nervous
system of the economy.
Source: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), price-fixing
177.
Defendant Construction Companies violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act when the
engaged in a price fixing combination. 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq., Defendant Construction

Companies determined in advance what price determination by all of their companies to bid
or perform work through DCWASA and D.C. Department of Transportation. They then
proceeded to set the prices for each of the seemingly competing companies such that
Defendant Anchors price would appear reasonable and consistent with normal business
practices. Together the Defendant(s) construction companies failed to provide the
opportunity to obtain the best price that normal competitive practice would have afforded.
178.
For their collective collusion that denied Plaintiff a fair opportunity to compete for the
IFBs listed, and denied DCWASA, DCDOT and the public trust for services affected by
DCWASA, DCDOT, a full and fair opportunity to obtain the best possible price for these
services, this court should award Plaintiff:
54
Fourth Count
378
179.
Defendant(s) all submitted prices for the listed IFB solicitations.:

i. Fort Myer Construction ,Corporation.
ii. Anchor Construction Corporation
iv. Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.
$12,850,422.99
$11,997,930.00
$13,012,300.00
$13,277,000.00
(Defendants IFB amount)


iii Civil Construction, LLC
$7,484,160.00
$7,784,704.00
$7,974,540.00
$7,675,200.00


iii. Civil Construction, L.L.C.
$3,126,150.00
$3,301,775.00
$3,251,880.00
$3,323,760.00


ii. Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.
$68,568,650.40
$78,882,475.00


i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Fort Myer Const.

$2,338,405.00
Capitol Paving Of D.C
$2,341,770.00
Civil Construction $2,415,255.00
Anchor Construction $2,161,446.00
55
Fourth Count
379
180.
Defendants Spread by Affiliated Companies per each IFB Solicitation:

Affiliates Bid Spread Amounts
i. Anchor Construction Corporation
$1,014,370.00
Anchor Civil
ii. Civil Construction, L.L.C.
$1,014,370.00
Civil-Anchor
iii. Fort Myer Construction ,Corporation.
$ 426,577.01
Fort Myer-Capitol
Capitol-Fort Myer
$ 426,577.01
Total $2,881,894.02
$300,544.00 Fort Myer Anchor
$300,544.00
Anchor-Fort Myer
$299,340.00
Civil-Capitol
$299,340.00
Capitol-Civil
Total $1,199,768.00

$125,730.00
Fort Myer - Civil
ii. Civil Construction, LLC
$125,730.00
Civil - Fort Myer
iii. Capitol Paving of D.C, Inc.
$21,985.00
Capitol Anchor
iv. Anchor Construction Corporation
$21,985.00
Anchor-Capitol
$295,430.00
Total
ii. Capitol Paving of D.C, Inc.
Total
pitol Paving of D.C
iii. Fort Myer Construction Corporation
iii. Civil Construction, L.L. C.

$10,313,825.00
(Fort Myer-Capitol)
$10,313,825.00 (Capitol- Fort Myer)
$20,627,650.00

$ 180,297.00
(Anchor-Capitol)
(Capitol -Anchor)
$ 180,297.00
(Fort Myer Civil)
$ 29,615.00
(Civil Fort Myer)
$ 29,615.00
Total $ 419,824.00
56
Fourth Count
380
Conclusion
181.
Defendants listed created a unique way to keep all of the affiliated companies to sustain a
way of controlling gainful economic opportunities throughout for all Defendant affiliated
companies bidding of IFB solicitations.
182.
Plaintiffs injury can be repaired by means of financial restitution from all Defendants
listed in this count and the injunctive relief described above.

183.
Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages awarded to be paid by Defendant
Fort Myer Construction Corporation on this count, in the amount of $ 11,196,291.01.

184.
Anchor Construction Corporation on this count, in the amount of $ 1,517,196.00.

185.
Civil Construction L.L.C. on this count, in the amount of $ 1,469,055.00.

186.
Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc on this count, in the amount of 11,242,024.01.

187.
Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages awarded to be paid by all or part
by each Defendant named on this count, in the amount of $ 25,424,566.02

188.
57
Fourth Count
381
FIFTH COUNT: MONOPOLY BY DEFENDANT COMPANIES

Defendants
2237 33rd St. N.E.
Defendant Washington, D.C. 20018 ;
Cheverly, MD, 20781
189. Pursuant of Clayton Antitrust Act (1914), Sec. 26, 16: Injunctive Relief for Private Parties:
Exception; Costs, Plaintiff state the following
190. During the time in question, August 20, 20008 through September 25, 2009.
192. In Pursuant of Title 15, Chapter 1, 2, Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty. Plaintiff
states the following:
193. Defendant(s) actions on this count can be defined as:

Every person who shall monopolize or attempt to monopolize or combine or conspire
with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce
58
Fifth Count.
382
among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony,
and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,.000.00
if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not
exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.,
Source: 15 U.S.C.A. 1-7 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
194. Defendants named, Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor
Construction Corporation, Defendant Civil Construction, L.L.C., Defendant Capitol Paving
of D.C., Inc. and others in question, all engaged, strategized and actively participated
through their internal and external board of directors relations, ownership, family relations,
and financial support, to determine and submit bids in response to DCWASA and DCDOT
infrastructure projects IFB solicitations, As a result, CNA lost contracts and profits through
monopoly interference by Defendant companies.
195. Companies of Defendants of Others in Question combined, engineered monopoly
interference that harmed and eliminated Plaintiffs status as low bidder for DCWASA IFB
solicitations: # 080020, # 090080 and # 090020 (See Exhibits D.9.1, D.9.2 and D.9.3).
196. All IFB contract solicitations were awarded to Defendant companies as low bidder by
DCWASA, for the following IFB solicitations:
59
Fifth Count.
383
Company
IFB
Bid Amount
i.
# 080020 Anchor Construction Corporation
$11, 997,930.00
ii.
# 090080 Corinthian Construction Corp.(Other in question)
$6,424,140.00
iii.
# 090020 Nastos Construction Inc (Other in question)
$2,703,160.00
For i., See Exhibits D.17.8; ii. See Exhibits D17.8 and for iii. See Exhibit D.17.8
197. All IFB contract solicitations were awarded to Defendant companies as low bidder by
DCDOT, Office of Contracting and Procurement Department for the following IFB
solicitations:
i. DOT DCKA-2009-B-0025 Fort Myer Construction Corporation $ 68,568,650.40
ii. DOT DCKA-2009-B-0193 Anchor Construction Corporation
$ 2,161,446.00
198. Plaintiff Cheeks of North America, Inc. Bid Amounts

i. DCWASA IFB # 080020 CNA bid $11,154,500.00 (lowest bidder)
ii. DCWASA IFB # 090080 CNA bid
iii. DCWASA IFB # 090020 CNA bid
iv. DOT DCKA-2009-B-0025 CNA bid $54, 252,805.00 (lowest bidder)

vi. DOT DCKA-2009-B-0193 CNA bid
60
Fifth Count.
384
199.
Profit = 8% of $11,154,500.00 :
$ 892,360.00
$ 892,360.00
$ 892,360.00
$ 892,360.00
$3,569,440.00
Total
Profit =8 % of $5,040,000.00
$ 403,200.00
$ 403,200.00
$ 403,200.00
$ 403,200.00
$1,612,800.00
Total

i. Anchor Construction Corp
iii. Fort Myer Construction ,Corp.

Profit = 8% of $2,817,600.00
$225,408.00
$225,408.00
$225,408.00
$225,408.00

iii. Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.
iv. Anchor Construction Corp
$901,632.00
Profit = 8% of $54, 252,805.00
$ 4,340,224.40
$ 4,340,224.40
$ 8,680,448.80
Total
Profit = 8% of $2,376,095.90
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
Total
D. IFB #DCKA-2009-B-0025
ii. Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc.
E. IFB #DCKA-2009-B-0193
Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc
Civil Construction L.L.C.
Total
Total Damages Requested
$190,087.67
$760,350.68
$1,520,701.36
61
Fifth Count.
385
Conclusion
200.
Defendant(s) listed only exist because of the financial mechanics of their operations
having the ability to monopolize IFB solicitations. Plaintiff CNA Inc. defeating listed
Defendant(s) ha challenged their existence in the DC metropolitan area. Defendants earns
more financially by actions of monopoly.
201.
Plaintiffs injury by ongoing actions of all Defendants can be repaired by means of
financial restitution from all Defendant(s) listed in this count and injunctive relief as
described above..

202.
Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages, from Defendant named on this
count, Defendant Anchor construction Corp. in the amount of $1,711,055.67

203.
Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages, from Defendant named on this
count, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C, Inc. in the amount of $6,051,280.07 .

204.
Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages, from Defendant named,
Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C., on this count, $1,711,055.67.

205.
Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages, from Defendant named, Fort
Myer Construction Corp. on this count, $6,051,280.07.

206.
Plaintiff prays for all or part from each of the Defendants of total amount of damages on
this count, $15,524,671.48.
62
Fifth Count.
386
207.
63
Fifth Count.
387
SIXTH COUNT: COERCIVE MONOPOLY; OWNERS, DIRECTORS, OFFICERS OF

COMPANIES, ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY
PUBLIC OFFICIALS.
Count Defendants
Francisco Rodrigues Neto Vice President, Board Member
Jose Rodrigues President, Board Member
Lewis Shrensky Treasurer, Secretary
2237 33rd St. N.E.
Jose Rodrigues Board Member
Florentino Gregorio President, Board Member
Cristina R. Gregorio Board Member
Francisco Rodrigues Neto Board Member
Lewis Shrensky Board Member
Jose Rodriguez Board Member
Cheverly, MD, 20781
Francisco R. Neto - President, Treasurer, Board Member
64
Sixth Count
388
Department of Small and Local Business Development

441 4th Street, NW, Suite 970N
Washington
208.
Time in question August 20, 2008 through September 25,, 2009.
209.
210.
Defendant District of Columbia
The District of Columbia has a duty follow federal law. It also has a duty to follow DC law.
Here, through its employees, officers and the Mayor himself, followed neither laws. What it
did was violate a myriad of duties to control the actions of its own agents, officials and
become a reality by gross negligence and a complete failure of its oversight duty, resulting in
no accountability or adherence to applicable law.
211.
Defendant(s) action are defined in this count as:
Coercive Monopoly In economics and business ethics, a coercive monopoly is a business concern that
prohibits competitors from entering the field, with the natural result being that the firm
is able to make pricing and production decisions independent of competitive forces.[1]
A coercive monopoly is not merely a sole supplier of a particular kind of good or
service (a monopoly), but it is a monopoly where there is no opportunity to compete
through means such as price competition, technological or product innovation, or
65
Sixth Count
389
marketing; entry into the field is closed. As a coercive monopoly is securely shielded
from possibility of competition, it is able to make pricing and production decisions with
the assurance that no competition will arise. It is a case of a non-contestable market. A
coercive monopoly has very few incentives to keep prices low and may deliberately
price gouge consumers by curtailing production.
Source: http://dictionary.babylon.com/coercive%20monopoly/.
212.
Defendants named, Defendant Jose Rodriquez, Defendant Lewis F. Shrensky, Francisco
Rodriguez Neto and others in question, all engaged, strategized and actively participated
through their internal and external board of directors relations, ownership, family relations,
and financial support, to determine and submit bids in response to DCWASA and DCDOT
infrastructure projects IFB solicitations, As a result, CNA lost profits through monopoly
interference by officers and directors of Defendant companies, during the time in question,
August 20, 2008 through June 18, 2009.
213.
Defendant Department of Small and Local Business Development employees and/or
appointed Directors of the Department positioned all Defendants listed with affirmative
action points t o keep on all IFB solicitations by Defendant(s) companies, that were winners
of solicitations:
iv. DOT DCKA-2009-B-0025

66
Sixth Count
390
v. DOT DCKA-2009-B-0193
214.
Defendants named repeatedly violated laws pertaining to The Clayton Antitrust Act
(1914) which is comprised of 12, 13, 14-19, 20, 21, 22-27 of Title 15; which actions of
Defendants also caused loss of profit to Plaintiff.
215.
Damages based on the expected profit times the number of offices held by the Defendant.
216.
Defendants named personally have the authority to regulate all companies participating
through direct influence of relationship with all divisions of companies. Defendants named
had interests based on positions held (See Exhibits B.1, and B.7). Defendants named
orchestrated, bidding, contract, employee supervision and management. Defendants signed
documents of ownership, partnership, board of directors, incorporators, vice presidents,
president (s), treasurer(s), secretary (S), all positions which are strategic and vital to
companies existence for competitive growth. Defendants named used positions for
Monopoly interference, which caused financial harm and loss of profit Plaintiff CNA was
projected to earn on the following IFB solicitations/contracts.
217.
A. DCWASA IFB # 080020:
Expected Profit by CNA: 8% of $11,154,500.00 (IFB Bid) = $ 892,360.00 x each
position held by Defendants.
1. Fort Myer Construction ,Corp.
Position
Damages Requested
i. Francisco Rodrigues Neto
Vice President
$ 892,360.00
$ 892,360.00
ii. Francisco Rodrigues Neto
Board Member
$ 892,360.00
iii. Jose Rodrigues
President
$ 892,360.00
iv. Jose Rodrigues
Board Member
$ 892,360.00
v Lewis Shrensky
Treasurer
$ 892,360.00
vi Lewis Shrensky
Secretary
67
Sixth Count
391
2. Anchor Construction Corp

i. Jose Rodrigues
iii. Florentino Gregorio
iv. Florentino Gregorio
v. Cristina R. Gregorio
3. Civil Construction, LLC
i. Lewis Shrensky
ii. Jose Rodriguez
TOTAL
$5,354,160.00
Board Member
Board Member
President
Board Member
Board Member
TOTAL
$ 892,360.00
$ 892,360.00
$ 892,360.00
$ 892,360.00
$ 892,360.00
$4,461,800.00
Board Member
Board Member
TOTAL
$ 892,360.00
$ 892,360.00
$1,784,720.00
4. Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.

i. Francisco Rodriguez Neto
ii. Francisco Rodriguez Neto
iii. Francisco Rodriguez Neto
Treasurer
$ 892,360.00
Board Member
$ 892,360.00
President
$ 892,360.00
TOTAL
$2,677,080.00
5. Damages by DCLSDBE Certified Company (Anchor Construction
Corporation)
12% of IFB solicitation amount $11,997,930.00) =
$1,439,751.60
Damages Requested for IFB # 080020
$15,717,511.60
218.
Expected Profit by CNA: 8% of $5,040,000.00 (IFB Bid) = $403,200.00
x each position held by Defendants
Damages
Position
Requested
Vice President
$ 403,200.00
Board
Member
$ 403,200.00
President
iii. Jose Rodrigues
$ 403,200.00
Board
Member
iv. Jose Rodrigues
$ 403,200.00
Treasury
v Lewis Shrensky
$ 403,200.00
Secretary
vi Lewis Shrensky
$ 403,200.00
TOTAL
$2,419,200.00
68
Sixth Count
392

i. Jose Rodrigues
i. Lewis Shrensky
ii. Jose Rodriguez
4. Capitol Paving of D.C, Inc.
Board Member
Board Member
President
Board Member
Board Member
TOTAL
$ 403,200.00
$ 403,200.00
$ 403,200.00
$ 403,200.00
$ 403,200.00
$2,016,000.00
Board Member
Board Member
TOTAL
$ 403,200.00
$ 403,200.00
$806,400.00
Treasury
Board Member
President
TOTAL
$ 403,200.00
$ 403,200.00
$ 403,200.00
$1,209,600.00
$6,451,200.00
219.
Expected Profit by CNA: 8% of $2,817,600.00 (IFB Bid) = $ 225,408.00
x each position held by Defendants
Damages
Position
Requested
Vice President
$ 225,408.00
Board Member
$ 225,408.00
iii. Jose Rodrigues
President
$ 225,408.00
iv. Jose Rodrigues
Board Member
$ 225,408.00
V Lewis Shrensky
Treasury
$ 225,408.00
vi Lewis Shrensky
Secretary
$ 225,408.00
$1,352,448.00
TOTAL
69
Sixth Count
393

i. Jose Rodrigues
i. Lewis Shrensky
ii. Jose Rodriguez

Board Member
Board Member
President
Board Member
Board Member
TOTAL
$ 225,408.00
$ 225,408.00
$ 225,408.00
$ 225,408.00
$ 225,408.00
$1,127,040.00
Board Member
Board Member
TOTAL
$ 225,408.00
$ 225,408.00
$ 450,816.00
Treasury
Board Member
President
AL
$ 225,408.00
$ 225,408.00
$ 225,408.00
$676,224.00
$3,606,528.00
70
Sixth Count
394
220.
Expected Profit by CNA: 8% of $ 54,552,805.00 (IFB Bid)= $ 4,364,224.4
: x each position held by Defendants
Damages
1. Fort Myer Construction Corp.
Position
Requested
Vice President
$ 4,364,224.4
Board
Member
$ 4,364,224.4
President
iii. Jose Rodrigues
$ 4,364,224.4
iv. Jose Rodrigues
Board Member
$ 4,364,224.4
Treasury
v. Lewis Shrensky
$ 4,364,224.4
Secretary
vi Lewis Shrensky
$ 4,364,224.4
TOTAL
$26,185,346.40
Damages
2. Capitol Paving of D.C. , Inc.
Position
Requested
Treasury
$ 4,364,224.4
Board Member
$ 4,364,224.4
President
$ 4,364,224.4
TOTAL
$13,092,673.20
3 Damages by DCLSDBE Certified Company (Fort Myer Construction
Corporation)
12% of IFB solicitation amount $68,568,650.40 =
$8,228,238.05
Damages Requested for IFB # DCKA--2009-B-0025
$47,506,257.65
221.
E. DCKA-2009-B-0193
Expected Profit by CNA: 8% of $2,376,095.90 (IFB Bid) = $190,087.67
x each position held by Defendants.
Position
Damages Requested
Vice President
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
Board Member
$190,087.67
iii. Jose Rodrigues
President
$190,087.67
iv. Jose Rodrigues
Board Member
$190,087.67
v. Lewis Shrensky
Treasurer
$190,087.67
vi Lewis Shrensky
Secretary
TOTAL
$1,140,526.02
71
Sixth Count
395

i. Jose Rodrigues
i. Lewis Shrensky
ii. Jose Rodriguez
Board Member
Board Member
President
Board Member
Board Member
TOTAL
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
$950,438.35
Board Member
Board Member
TOTAL
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
$380,175.34
Treasurer
Board Member
President
TOTAL
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
$570,263.01
5. Defendant Department of Small

and Local Business Development
Officials
12% of IFB solicitation amount $2,161,446.00 =
Damages Requested for IFB DCKA-2009-B-0193
$259,373.52
$3,300,776.24
Conclusion
222. The individual defendants listed above gave the four corporate contactor defendants many
ways of having a competitive advantage by knowing of the affiliations over the years of
consenting illegal actions of using affirmative action certifications and all Defendants
jointly coerced monopoly against Plaintiff CNA Inc..
72
Sixth Count
396
223. Plaintiffs injury by ongoing actions of all Defendants can be repaired by means of
financial restitution in this count, and the injunctive relief necessary ot stop the unlawful
activieies and irrevocable harm those acts entail..
224. Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages, from Defendant named on this
count, Francisco Rodrigues Neto in the amount of $ 32,087,456.02.
count, Defendant Jose Rodrigues, in the amount of $ 15,572,671.48.
226. Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages, from Defendant named, Defendant
Lewis Shrensky, on this count in the amount of $ 13,861,615.81.
Florentino Gregorio , on this count in the amount of $ $3,422,111.34.
Cristina R. Gregorio, on this count in the amount of $ $1,711,055.67.
229. Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages in this count from Defendant
Department of Small and Local Business Development officials and the Defendant District
of Columbia Government in the amount of $ 9,927,363.17.
230. Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages, from Defendants named in the
amount of $76,582,273.49 to be paid by all or part by each Defendant (s) named on this
count.
73
Sixth Count
397
74
Sixth Count
398
SEVENTH COUNT: CONTRACT STEERING.
Defendants
Executive Office of the Mayor,
Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor, District of Columbia
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 316,
Washington, D.C. 20004.
Government of the District of Columbia,

Department of Transportation
David P. Gragan, Chief Procurement Officer
Jerry M. Carter, Contracting Officer.
Gabe Klein District Director of Department of Transportation
2000 14th St. N.W. 6th Floor
(aka DC Water)
2nd Floor
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority,
2nd Floor
75
Seventh Count
399
Carlo Enciso, Senior Construction Contract Administrator

2nd Floor
Jerry Johnson, Former, General Manager DCWASA
14501 Sweitzer Lane
Laurel, MD 20702
232.
The time in question was from March 10, 2009 through October 7, 2009.
233.
234.
Defendant District of Columbia:
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority has a duty follow federal law. It also has a duty
to follow DC law. Here, through its employees, officers and the President, himself of
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, followed neither laws. What it did was
violate a myriad of duties to control the actions of its own agents, officials and boards. It
76
Seventh Count
400
thereby became a part of the conspiracy which damaged the plaintiff and the public
accountability.

237. Contract steering can be defined by actions of named Defendants such as:
Steer - to control the course of : direct.
Source: "steer." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010.
Merriam-Webster Online. 29 September 2010
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steer
238. Defendants named, Executive Office of the Mayor, Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor, District of
Columbia; Government of the District of Columbia, Department of Transportation, Office
of Contracting and Procurement, David P. Gragan, Chief Procurement Officer; Jerry M.
Carter, Contracting Officer; Gabe Klein, District Director of Department of Transportation;
Government of the District of Columbia, Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority Procurement Department and named Defendants Jerry Johnson, former
Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority General Manager and
Carlos Enciso - current Senior Construction Contract Administrator were involved in
contract steering of IFB solicitations funded by US government and District of Columbia
government for infrastructure.
77
Seventh Count
401
239. Defendants named also steered contracts to other Defendants named, Defendant Fort Myer
Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation, Defendant Capitol
Paving of D.C., Inc, Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C..
240. Defendants steered the following IFB solicitations to other Defendants, DCKA-B-20090025, Pavement Restoration.
241. Defendants named, DCDOT, Jerry M. Carter, designed, planned, arranged for amendment
6, dated 3/16/2009, to favor Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation and Defendant
Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc. for DCKA-B-2009-0025 (See Exhibit D.14.1) to receive a
competitive advantage over Plaintiff with LSDBE preference point and/or percentage
reduction of contract amount built in for Defendants Fort Myer Construction Corporation
and Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc..
242. Plaintiff received amendment # 6 of DCKA-B-2009-0025 on March 16, 2009 via email 2
days before the sealed bid opening of DCKA-B-2009-0025 on March 18, 2009.
243. Defendant named DCDOT, Office of Contracting and Procurements, 6th amendment was
signed by Jerry M. Carter, Contracting Officer, (See Exhibit D.14.1) was favorable only to
named Defendants, Fort Myer Construction Corporation and Defendant Capitol Paving of
D.C., Inc., to be awarded IFB contract solicitation.
244. Plaintiff had to readjust entire IFB price items for DCKA-B-2009-0025 in order to
strategically compete for the award of the Pavement Restoration Contract. Defendant
DCDOT, Office of Contracting and Procurement, Director and officers of IFB solicitation
engineered a pre-determined contract steering matrix scheme for Defendant named,
78
Seventh Count
402
Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation and Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.
to be staged as the companies of choice by DCDOT, Office of Contracting and Procurement
and Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of the District of Columbia.
245. Defendant DCDOT, Office of Contracting and Procurements 6th amendment gave a
reduction estimated amount of $18,000,000.00 to Defendant Fort Myer Construction
Corporation and other affiliate Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc., Defendant
DCS\LSDBE, provided the affirmative action points to all competing Defendants listed
246. Plaintiffs bid for DCKA-B-2009-0025 submitted on March 18, 2009 was recorded as low
bidder of four on Bid Tabulation Sheet, (See Exhibit D.10.3).
247. Defendant named employee Jerry M Carter, contracting Officer scheduled a meeting with
Plaintiff and associates at the facilities of the Department of Transportation, Office of
Contracting and Procurement, 441 4th St. NW, Suite 701 S., Washington D.C. on May 18,
2009 in the presence of Alton Woods to discuss DCKA-B-2009-0025 issues of DCDOT,
Office of Contracting and Procurement and concerns of bid bond form and type of bid
guarantee submitted by Plaintiff (See Exhibits D.8.1, E.8.2, D.8.3, D.8.4, and D.8.5).
248. Defendant named employee Jerry M. Carter denied Plaintiff curing time and remedy request
to resubmit bond form requested by DCDOT, Office of Contracting and Procurement,
according to Article 5 of the government of the District of Columbia Standard Contract
Provisions (See Exhibit E.2.5).
79
Seventh Count
403
249. Defendant named employee Jerry M. Carter was asked by Plaintiff Executive Officers (John
C. Cheeks), if he knew of the affiliation between named Defendants, Defendant Fort Myer
Construction Corporation and Defendant Capital Paving of D.C. Inc. are sharing common
ownership or family relations.
250. Defendant named employee Jerry M. Carter responded verbally to Plaintiff about Defendant
named, Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation and Defendant Capital Paving of
D.C., Inc. were investigated and agency found some affiliation of companies.
251. Defendant named employee Jerry M. Carter mailed a letter of bid rejection stamped May
27, 2009.
252. Plaintiff filed a bid protest, P-0810, at District of Columbia Contract Appeals Board on June
17, 2009, (See Exhibits K.4.1, K.4.2, K.4.3, K.4.4, and K.4.5) at building 717 14th St. NW,
Washington, D.C..
253. Defendants named, DCDOT, Office of Contracting and Procurement and the Mayor of the
District of Columbia, Adrian M. Fenty ignored the Honorable judge presiding over the D.C.
Contract Appeals Board, Protest No P-0810 , order to stop work on the contract.
254. Defendants named, DCDOT, Office of Contracting and Procurement and the Executive
Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia, and Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of the District
of Columbia together steered unsolicited contracts which involved Home Rule Act Special
Rules regarding certain contracts, section 451 DC official Codes 1-204.51, See Exhibits
F.8..47 and F.8.48 listed below:
80
Seventh Count
404
i.
DCKA- 2009-B-0087 during the time in question 7-27-09. value of solicitation (See
Exhibit L.1.4) $1,675,351.80.
ii.
DCKA-2009-C-0025 Pavement Restoration, during the time in question 7-15-09.

Value of solicitation (See Exhibit L.1.3) $13,945,755.00.
iii.
DCKA-2009-C-0040 Pavement Restoration Citywide, during the time in question 810-09. Value of solicitation (See Exhibit L.1.5) $5,529,814.11.
iv.
Estimated total awards unsolicited IFBs $21,150,920.98.
255. Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Procurement department
with (former) General Manager, Defendant(s) Jerry Johnson and Carlo Enciso jointly
steered contracts to Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation, with the amount of
$11,997,930.00 during the time in question from August 19, 2008 to May 15,2009
256. Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Procurement Department
with (former) Defendant General Manager, Defendant(s) Jerry Johnson and Defendant
Carlo Enciso, according to inside procurement witnesses (See Exhibit Q.1) knew or should
have known Defendant companies, Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation,
Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. and Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc were
affiliated with Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation and allowe the companies to
actively participate in bid process of IFB Solicitations for infrastructure projects at will in
violation of the Non Collusion Affidavit.
257. Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Procurement department
with (former) General Manager, Defendant(s) Jerry Johnson and Defendant Carlo Enciso
81
Seventh Count
405
jointly steered contract on IFB Solicitation 080020 and # 090020 by means or tactics of
Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Procurement Department by
i. Removing Plaintiff CNAs Bid Packaae from Procurement Department
ii. Failing to acknowledge and respond to a Bidders request to protest the bid
iii. Failing to document fraud by a Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and Sewer
Authority Procurement Department employee.
iv. Acknolwedge common ownership of Defendant(s) companies as awhole seeking
infrastructure projects.
258.
List of IFB Solicitations and Bid amounts which were steered to Defendant(s) companies:
i. DCWASA IFB # 080020, Replacement of Small Diameter Priority Water Mains for
2008 Construction $11,997,930.
ii. DCWASA IFB # 090080, Sewer Liner Replacement $ 6,424,140.
Conclusions
259. Defendant(s) listed assured gainful economic growth and financial prosperity each time
they directed IFB contracts to primary Defendants to eliminate Plaintiff CNA Inc.
opportunity to advance in the District of Columbia Government procurements or nonDistrict of Columbia Government private utility company procurements.
260. Plaintiffs injury can be repaired by means of financial restitution from all Defendants
listed in this count and the injunctive relief described above.
82
Seventh Count
406

261. Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages from Defendant (s) District of
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, Procurement Department officials and Defendant
DCWASA as a whole in the amount of $ 18,422,070.
262. Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages on this count requested from
Defendant named District of Columbia Department of Transportation-Office of Contracting
and Procurement for failure to solicit bid in accordance with regulations and violated D.C.
Contract Appeals Board rule, for the amount of $ 21,150,920.98.
263. Plaintiff also prays for all or part of total amount of damages on this count requested from
Defendant named DCDOT-Office of Contracting and Procurement for violation of the stay
ordered by the D.C. Contract Appeals Board for IFB solicitation DCKA-2009-B-0025,
pursuant to D.C. Code 2-309.08 (c)(1), for the amount of $ 54,552,805.00.
Total for District of Columbia Department of Transportation, Office of Contracting and
Procurement is $ 75,703,725.98.
Defendant named Executive Office of the Mayor for failure to solicit bids in accordance
with regulations and violated D.C. Contract Appeals Board, pursuant to D.C. Code 2309.08 (c)(1), for the amount of $ 21,150,920.98.
Defendant named Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of the District of Columbia for failure to solicit
83
Seventh Count
407
bid in accordance with regulations and violated D.C. Contract Appeals Board, pursuant to
D.C. Code 2-309.08 (c)(1), for the amount of $21,150,920.98.
Defendant District of Columbia for the failures and violations stated for Adrian M. Fenty,
Mayor of Washington, DC,, Executive Office of the Mayor, and District of Columbia
Department of Transportation, Office of Contracting and Procurement
267. Plaintiff prays for total damages on this count $ 136,427,637.94.
84
Seventh Count
408
EIGHTH COUNT: VIOLATION OF NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT FOR DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY AND DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF IFB SOLICITATIONS.
2237 33rd St. N.E.
Cheverly, MD, 20781
Paul T. Bruflat Senior Vice President
85
Eighth Count
409

(aka DC Water)
2nd Floor
Jerry Johnson, (Former) General Manager

14501 Sweitzer Lane
Laurel, MD 20702
269. Time in question for this count August 20, 2008 through September 25,, 2009.
accountability.
272. Defendant(s) actions on this Count are defined as:
i. Collusion An agreement between two or more people to defraud a person of his or her
rights or to obtain something that is prohibited by law.
86
Eighth Count
410
A secret arrangement wherein two or more people whose legal interests seemingly
conflict conspire to commit fraud upon another person; a pact between two people to
deceive a court with the purpose of obtaining something that they would not be able to
get through legitimate judicial channels.
Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/collusion West's Encyclopedia of American
Law, published by Thomson Gale
273. Plaintiff conformed to IFB solicitation rules, by signing Non-collusion affidavit provide by
Defendant District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority s Procurement Department, for
IFB solicitations: IFB # 080020, (Replacement of Small Diameter Priority Water Mains for
2008 Construction) ; IFB # 090080, (Sewer Liner Replacement) and IFB # 090020, (Fire
Hydrant Replacement). Time in question is August 20, 2008 through September 25, 2009
for these IFBs.
274. Plaintiff conformed to IFB solicitation rules, by signing non-collusion affidavit provided by
District of Columbia, Department of Transportation, Office of Contracting and Procurement
for IFB solicitation DCKA-2009-B-0025, (Pavement Restoration City-Wide) and DCKA2009-B-0193 (Safe School Routes). Time in question is October 20, 2008 through
September 25,, 2009.
275. Defendants named violated Non-collusion affidavit rules and conditions for participating in
IFB solicitations for DCWASA (See Exhibit D.12.1) and the DCDOT (See Exhibit D.13.1).
276. Defendants engaged all companies and others in question, to continuously violate Noncollusion affidavit.
87
Eighth Count
411
277. Violations committed by Defendants are a direct offense of The Clayton Antitrust Act
(1914) which is comprised of 12, 13, 14-19, 20, 21, 22-27 of Title 15 (See Exhibits B.1,
B.3, and B.9).
278.
PlaiA. DCWASA IFB # 080020
Total
Basis
Damage Requested
$12,850,422.99
$11,997,930.00
$13,012,300.00
$13,277,000.00
$51,137,652.99

i. Fort Myer Construction ,Corporation. $7,484,160.00
$7,784,704.00
$7,974,540.00
$7,675,200.00
Total
$30,918,604.00


$3,301,775.00
$3,251,880.00
$3,323,760.00
Total
$13,003,565.00


Total
$68,568,650.40
$78,882,475.00
$147,451,125.40

$2,338,405.00
$2,341,770.00
$2,415,255.00
$2,161,446.00
$9,256,876.00


i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Fort Myer Const.

Capitol Paving Of D.C
Civil Construction
Anchor Construction
Total
88
Eighth Count
412
279. Defendant Western Surety Company/CNA with Paul T. Bruflat as Senior Vice President
issued and endorsed (See Exhibits J.101, J.10.2 and J.10.3) all named Defendant(s)
companies, bid bond(s) to participate in all IFB solicitations named. (See Thirteenth Count
for Western Surety Company/CNA Surety/ Paul T. Bruflat
280.
Total Requested
Defendants IFB amount 5% Bid Bond Surety
Guarantee
$642,521.15
$11,997,930.00
$599,896.50
$13,012,300.00
$650,615.00
Total
$1,893,032.65

Total
$7,484,160.00
$7,784,704.00
$7,974,540.00
$374,208.00
$389,235.20
$398,727.00
$1,162,170.20

Total
$3,126,150.00
$3,301,775.00
$3,251,880.00
$156,307.50
$165,088.75
$162,594.00
$483,990.25

i. Fort Myer Const.
ii. Civil Construction
iii. Anchor Construction
$2,338,405.00
$2,415,255.00
$2,161,446.00
Total
$116,920.25
$120,762.75
$108,072.30
$345,755.30
89
Eighth Count
413
Conclusion
281. Defendants listed engaged in the actions in this count, knowingly for many years,
Defendants listed did not expect Plaintiff CNA Inc. as an independent company to challenge
and defeat them for IFB solicitations during August 20, 2008, September 25, 2009.
Defendant s lacked ethical and fair business principles which severely injured Plaintiff
throughout competition for IFB solicitations .
282. Plaintiffs injury can be repaired by means of financial restitution from all Defendants listed
in this count and the injunctive relief described above.
count, Defendant Anchor construction Corp. in the amount of $25,245,855.00
count, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C, Inc. in the amount of $ 105,500,205.00.
Civil Construction LLC, on this count in the amount of $ 26,653,975.00.
Fort Myer Construction Corp. on this count in the amount of $ 94,367,788.39.
287. Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages, from Defendant named, Paul T.
Bruflat, Senior Vice President. on this count in the amount of $ 3,884,948.40.
288. Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages, from Defendants named
$ 255,652,771.79 to be paid by all or part by each Defendant (s) named on this count.
90
Eighth Count
414
289. All of foregoing requests for damage awards and relief are requested or in such other sum
as the court determines is just and equitable in accordance with D.C. Code 28-4502 et
seq., or as otherwise just and equitable pursuant the other claims and counts in this case.
91
Eighth Count
415
NINTH COUNT: VIOLATION OF D.C. CODE 28- 4502; ENGAGING IN A BIDRIGGING CONSPIRACY BY DIRECTORS, OWNERS AND OFFICERS.
Count Defendants
2237 33rd St. N.E.
Francisco Rodrigues Neto - Board member
Cheverly, MD, 20781
289. Pursuant to requirements of District of Columbia Code 28-4502, Plaintiff states the
following:
290. Time in question is August 20, 2008 through September 25, 2009.
92
Ninth Count
416
292. Plaintiff sustained injuries when defendants engaged in a bid-rigging conspiracy (See
Exhibit A.3), defined as:
i.
Bid rigging Under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act provision prohibiting contracts,
combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of trade and state law provisions
similar thereto, concerted action to eliminate competitive bidding through bid
rigging is illegal. Bid rigging is illegal per se.
Bid rigging is an agreement between two or more persons to eliminate, reduce, or
interfere with competition for a job or contract that is to be awarded on the basis
of bids. It has been said that collusion is not a necessary element of bid rigging.
Two persons are treated as competitors, so that bid rigging by them is illegal per
se, even if one of them could not actually perform the contract. Bid rigging is
illegal even if the costs and profit of the job are reasonable.
Source: CJS MONOPOLIES 102 Bid Rigging.
293. Plaintiff asserts that the bid-rigging conspiracy violates District of Columbia Code 284502 (hereinafter the Code). Under the Code, "[e]very contract, combination in the form
of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several
States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."
294. The wording of the Code is identical to the language used in Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
See 15 U.S.C. 1. Therefore, by sufficiently alleging a claim under the Sherman Antitrust
Act, CNA has also has stated a claim under the Code.
93
Ninth Count
417
295. Therefore, the Defendants conduct described above violates the Code.
296. In violation of the Code, Defendant Construction Companies engaged in a bid-rigging
conspiracy by submitting collusive bids to make the winning bid on the IFB submitted by
Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor Construction
Corporation, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc., Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C.
and others in question appear competitive and reasonable.
297. In violation of the Code, Defendant DCWASA, DCWASA-BOD, DCWASA-PD,
DCWASA-RSC, DCDOT, and the D.C. Council. Committee on Public Works and
Transportation (CPWT) aided and abetted such conspiracy by accepting and ultimately
awarding the bid on the IFB to one of the conspiring companies, when DCWASA had
actual knowledge that Defendant companies shared common ownership. In violation of the
Code, Defendant Western Surety (Western) engaged in the bid rigging conspiracy by
securing the bonds (See Exhibit J.1) for all of the Defendant Construction Companies on a
surety bid bond when they knew or should have known that the Defendant Construction
Companies were engaged in collusive anti-competitive practices made possible by
Westerns bid guarantees. Thus Western facilitated the purposes of the combination.
298. As a result of the Defendants conduct described above, competition in the relevant market
has been injured. Plaintiff CNA has sustained monetary damages, damage to its reputation,
and loss of goodwill, and consumers have lost the benefit of competition in the relevant
market.
94
Ninth Count
418
299. The Defendants, through their bid-rigging conspiracy, have continuously prevented CNA
from winning the IFBs that the Defendants had evidently allocated to themselves, by
submitting the bids as if they were from separate entities when, in fact, the so-called
competing bids were submitted by companies with overlapping and common equity interest.
300. Defendant companies below are listed in all IFB Solicitations infrastructure projects at
Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, Procurement Department;
Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, Board of Directors, and
Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, General Counsel
301.

1 Fort Myer Construction, Corp.
ii. Jose Rodrigues
iii. Lewis Shrensky
(Plaintiff's IFB Bid amount $11,154,500.00) was assigned

through conspiratorial agreement to Directors, Owners
and Officers of each corporation as follows:
$3,718,166.67
$3,718,166.67
$3,718,166.66

i. Jose Rodrigues
iv. Cristina R. Gregorio
$2,788,625.00
$2,788,625.00
$2,788,625.00
$2,788,625.00
95
Ninth Count
419

i. Lewis Shrensky
ii. Jose Rodriguez
$5,577,250.00
$5,577,250.00
4. Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc.

i. Francisco Rodriguez Neto;
$11,154,500.00
Total

ii. Jose Rodrigues
iii. Lewis Shrensky
i. Jose Rodrigues
ii Francisco Rodrigues Neto
$44,618,000.00
(Plaintiff's IFB Bid amount $5,040,000.00) was assigned
$1,680,000.0
$1,680,000.0
$1,680,000.0
$1,260,000.00
$1,260,000.00
$1,260,000.00
$1,260,000.00

i. Lewis Shrensky
ii. Jose Rodriguez
$2,520,000.00
$2,520,000.00

$5,040,000.00
$ 20,160,000.00
Total
96
Ninth Count
420

ii. Jose Rodrigues
iii. Lewis Shrensky
(Plaintiff's IFB Bid amount $ 2,817,600.00 ) was assigned

$939,200.00
$939,200.00
$939,200.00

i. Jose Rodrigues
$704,400.00
$704,400.00
$704,400.00
$704,400.00
3 Civil Construction, LLC

i. Lewis Shrensky
ii. Jose Rodriguez
$1,408,800.00
$1,408,800.00

$2,817,600.00
$
Total
D. DOT IFB #DCKA-2009-B0025

ii. Jose Rodrigues
iii. Lewis Shrensky
11,270,400.00
(Plaintiff's IFB Contract amount $54,552,805.00 ) was
assigned through conspiratorial agreement to Directors,
Owners and Officers of each corporation as follows:
$18,184,268.34
$18,184,268.33
$18,184,268.33

54,552,805.00
$ 109,105,610.00
Total
97
Ninth Count
421
intiff's IFB Contract Bid, $2,376,095.90) was assigned

through conspiratorial agreement to Directors, Owners and
Officers of each corporation as follows:
DOT IFB #DCKA-2009-B-0193

Fort Myer Construction ,Corp.
i. Jose Rodrigues
i. Lewis Shrensky
Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc.
Anchor Construction Corp
Jose Rodrigues
Francisco Rodrigues Neto
Florentino Gregorio
Cristina R. Gregorio
$792,031.97
$792,031.97
$792,031.96
$2,376,095.90
$594,023.97
$594,023.97
$594,023.98
$594,023.98
ivil Construction, LLC

Lewis Shrensky
Jose Rodriguez
$1,188,047.95
$1,188,047.95
$9,504,383.60
Total
Conclusion
302. Defendants listed in this count engaged in actions through control of owner(s), executives,
directors, known and unknown, and management personnel known or unknown which
guided the affiliated corporate entities. All participated for various sealed bids for District of
Columbia IFB solicitations or non-DC government private utility company projects funded
by United States Government over a period of many years in the District of Columbia.
98
Ninth Count
422
303. Plaintiffs multiple injury can be repaired by means of financial restitution from all
Defendants listed in this count coupled with the injunctive relief described above.
Plaintiffs Plea for Damages
304. Plaintiff prays for relief to be awarded in the amount requested to be paid all or in part by
Defendant Francisco Rodrigues Neto for a total of $106,601,716.85 .
Defendant Lewis Shrensky for a total of $ 36,007,764.90.
Defendant Jose Rodrigues for a total of $41,354,813.89 .
Defendant Florentino Gregorio for a total of $ 5,347,048.98 .
Defendant Cristina R. Gregorio for a total of $ 5,347,048.98 .
each Defendants named who are directors, officers, and owners for the total of
$194,658,393.60.
the court determines is just and equitable in accordance with D.C. Code 28-4502 et seq.,
or as otherwise just and equitable pursuant the other claims and counts in this case.
99
Ninth Count
423
TENTH COUNT: BREACHED PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS
Count Defendants
(aka DC Water)
2nd Floor
Jerry Johnson, General Manager (Former Employee)
Carlo Enciso, Senior Construction, Contract Administrator
2nd Floor
311. Time in question August 20, 2008 through May 15, 2009.
100
Tenth Count
424
accountability.
314. The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Procurement Regulations
(Regulations) govern the procurement of goods and services for IFB # 080020, # 090080
and # 090020.
315. Jerry Johnsons termination of CNAs bid on IFB # 080020 was not in accordance with the
regulations during the time in question, August 20, 2008 through September 15, 2008.
316. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Procurement Regulations (1999), (See
Exhibit E.1.7), Section 5312 (see Exhibit E.1.13, Mistakes in Bids Before Award)
mandates a Contracting Officer to examine each bid for mistakes and 5315.2 (See Exhibit
E.1.14, Mistakes in Bids After Award). Those sections authorize and require a
Contracting Officer to make a determination regarding mistakes in bids on the basis of clear
and convincing evidence, Section 5312.4 (See Exhibit E.1.13 ).
317. Under Section 5312 of the Regulations, (See Exhibit E.1.13) a Contracting Officer has a
duty to examine each bid for mistakes. (5312.1) (See Exhibit E.1.13). In addition, in a
situation where a Contracting Officer reasonably believes that there is a mistake within a
bid application, he has a duty to notify the bidder of the mistake and request for verification
of the mistake (See Exhibit E.1.13). However, in the instant case, Mr. Johnson breached his
duty of care mandated by the regulations by failing to notify CNA of omissions within
certain provisions of CNAs bid applications. The reason for termination of CNAs award
as stated by the contract officer was untrue. Further the termination was twenty-one (21)
101
Tenth Count
425
days after the initial award to Plaintiff CNA. In the interim, no notice or effort to correct
the several mistakes by DC was made, leading under these circumstances to an inference
of fraud in the award.
318. The Correct facts are: page three (3) of the Bid Application was incomplete because
Plaintiff omitted to declare a surety for his promise to perform. This omission, while
apparent, was not carefully and diligently examined by Mr. Johnson prior to awarding
Plaintiff the bid.
319. Moreover, Mr. Johnson further breached his duty as a Contracting Officer under 5313 of
the Regulations for IFB # 080020, # # 090080 and # 090020. 5313 mandates him to
correct a bid if he discovers mistakes in that bid after awarding it to a bidder for the
following IFB # 080020, # 090080 and # 090020.
320. Section 5313 of the Regulations provides a Contracting Officer the option to correct a
mistake by contract amendment if he or she makes a written determination that correcting
the mistake would be in the best interest of DCWASA and that the correction would not
change the essential requirements of the contract (See Exhibit E.1.13).
321. If a Contracting Officer decides not to correct mistakes in a bid, the officer has an option to
1) rescind the award; 2) reform the contract to delete the items involved in the mistake or
reform the contract to increase the price if the contract price, as corrected, always making
sure that the corrected amount does not exceed that of the next lowest acceptable bid under
the original solicitation; 3) make no change to the contract; or 4) terminate the contract so
long as his decision is based on clear and convincing evidence that a mistake was mutual or
102
Tenth Count
426
unilaterally made by the contractor, and was so apparent as to have given the Contracting
Officer notice of the probability of the mistake.
322. But, Mr. Johnson continued to breach his duty of due diligence by not undertaking
necessary procedures provided under 5313 of the Regulations. Specifically, Mr. Johnson
terminated the Bid Application on September 9, 2008 (See Exhibits H.1.1 and H.1.2 ),
which failed to provide Plaintiff with clear and convincing evidence that a mistake in his
Bid Application was mutual or unilaterally made by the Contractor and that it was so
apparent as to have given Mr. Johnson notice of the probability of the mistake.
323. Rather, Mr. Johnsons underlying rationale was that elements considered in this decision
were that [Bid Application] did not include a completed Bid Bond with sureties or certified
check for five percent (5%) of the bid amount. (See Exhibit D.7.1).
324. Therefore, Mr. Johnsons failure to take proper procedural steps to terminate the award was
not in conformity with the Regulations. Consequently, Defendants breach of duty to take
necessary regulatory procedures regarding mistakes in the Bid Application was the
proximate and actual cause of Plaintiffs retraction of the award.
325.
A. DCWASA IFB # 080020 Replacement of Small Diameter Priority Water Mains for 2008 Construction,
1. DCWASA- Procurement Department
$ 11,145,500.00
CNA IFB Amount $11,154,500.00
i. Jerry Johnson
$ 892,360.00
8% Profit of CNA IFB Amount

$11,154,500.00
ii. Carlo Enciso
$ 892,360.00

$11,154,500.00
Total
$12,930,220.00
103
Tenth Count
427
Sewer Liner Replacement
i. DCWASA- Procurement Department
$ 5,040,000.00
CNA IFB Amount
ii. Jerry Johnson

$5,040,000.00
403,200.00
$ 5,443,200.00
Total
C. DCWASA IFB # 090020 Fire Hydrant Replacement
i. DCWASA- Procurement Department
$2,817,600.00 CNA IFB Amount
ii. Jerry Johnson
$ 225,408.00
$3,043,008.00
Total
Total Requested
8% Profit of CNA IFB

Amount $2,817,600.00
21,425,428.00
Conclusion
326. Defendants listed knowingly breached procurement regulations for the advancement of
other Defendants of choice. Defendant, former General Manager and employees whom he
managed or directed did not afford an economic gainful opportunity for Plaintiff after
winning IFB solicitations.
327. Plaintiffs injury can be repaired by repaired by means of financial restitution from all
Defendants listed in this count coupled with the injunctive relief described above.
104
Tenth Count
428

328. Because of Defendant Jerry Johnsons acts of commission and omission as an employee of
DCWASA, Plaintiff prays for all or part of compensatory relief from Defendant DCWASA
and Defendant Jerry Johnson, jointly and severally in the amount of $ 1,520,968.00.
329. Because of Defendant Carlo Encisos acts of commission and omission as an employee of
DCWASA, Plaintiff prays for all or part of compensatory relief from Defendant DCWASA
and Carlo Enciso, jointly and severally in the amount of $ 892,360.00.
330. Because of Defendants named, District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
Procurement Department, acts of commission and omission Plaintiff prays for all or part
from Defendant of total amount of compensatory relief in the amount of $ 19,012,100.00.
331. Because of Defendant named, District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
Procurement Department, Carlo Encisos, and Jerry Johnsons procurement acts of
commission and omission Plaintiff prays for all or part from Defendant of total amount of
compensatory damages on this count in the amount of $ 21,425,428.00.
the court determines is just and equitable in accordance with regulations of DC WASA, or
105
Tenth Count
429
ELEVENTH COUNT: COMMON LAW FRAUD

Count Defendants:
2237 33rd St. N.E.
Cheverly, MD, 20781
Paul T. Bruflat Senior Vice President
106
Eleventh Count
430

David P. Gragan, Chief Procurement Officer
Jerry M. Carter, Contracting Officer.
2000 14th St. N.W.
6th Floor
(aka DC Water)
2nd Floor
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (aka DC Water)
Jerry Johnson, (Former) General Manager
14501 Sweitzer Lane
Laurel, MD 20702
Affiliated Persons of
Committee on Public Works and Transportation
Jim Graham, Chairperson (Council Member Ward 1)
Ted G. Loza, (former) Chief of Staff,
Council Member Ward 1
Steven Hernndez (Legislative & Budget Director)
1350 Penn. Ave. NW
Suite 116
Board of Directors
2nd Floor
107
Eleventh Count
431

Retail Services Committee
2nd Floor, Washington, D.C. 20032
Department of Small and Local Business Development Officials
441 4th Street, NW, Suite 970N
About 25 unknown Conspirators with unknown addresses
108
Eleventh Count
432
333.
Plaintiff states the following:
334.
Time in question August 20, 2008 through September 25, 2009.
335.
336.
Defendant District of Columbia:
did was violate a myriad of duties to control the actions of its own agents, officials and
337.
Defendant District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority:
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority has a duty follow federal law. It also has a
duty to follow DC law. Here, through its employees, officers and the President, himself of
thereby became a part of the conspiracy which damaged the plaintiff and the public interest.
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority in fact enabled the conspiracy in violation
of 15 U.S.C. sec 1 et seq. to become a reality by gross negligence and no oversight
accountability.
109
Eleventh Count
433
338.
Reliance and damages seem to be key elements upon which a fraud case can succeed or
fail. Poblete v. Rittenhouse Mortg. Brokers, 675 F. Supp. 2d 130, 135 (D.D.C. 2009) .
Rule 9(b) requires that the pleader provides the who, what, when, where, and how with
respect to the circumstances of fraud.).
339.
The essential elements of common law fraud are: (1) a false representation (2) in
reference to a material fact, (3) made with knowledge of its falsity, (4) with the intent to
deceive, and (5) the complainant takes action in reliance upon the representation. Sankin v.
5410 Connecticut Avenue Corp., 281 F. Supp. 524 (1968).
340.
Specifically, fraud claims arise from the totality of circumstance where the owners,
directors, and members of the Defendant Construction Companies shared common

ownership of the Defendant companies even though on the face of their bids, proposals and
applications, they appeared to be separate entities.
341.
This deception carried through all of the corporate contracting defendants fraudulent
activities herein. Those activities were aided and abetted by the individual employees of the
utilities and governmental organizations who failed to exercise their statutory and regulatory
duty.
342.
Plaintiff alleges that all of these actions were intentional by each of the named defendants
herein, and for monetary or other unlawful benefit reasons.
110
Eleventh Count
434
Definitions
343.
The word person, wherever used in section 1 to 7 of this title shall be deemed to
include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the
United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any
foreign country Source: 15 U.S.C.A. 1-7
344.
Defendant four Construction Companies, Defendant(s) Fort Myer Construction
Corporation, Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C.

Inc and or Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C., engaged in common-law fraud. The actions
by Defendants can be defined as fraud:
1. A knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce
another to act to his or her detriment. Fraud is usu. a tort, but in some cases (esp. when
the conduct is willful) it may be a crime. Also termed intentional fraud.
2. A misrepresentation made recklessly without belief in its truth to induce another
person to act.
3. A tort arising from a knowing misrepresentation, concealment of material fact, or
reckless misrepresentation made to induce another to act to his or her detriment.
4. Unconscionable dealing; esp., in contract law, the unfair use of the power arising out
of the parties' relative positions and resulting in an unconscionable bargain. Source:
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), fraud
345. Common Law Fraud/Misrepresentation in DC
111
Eleventh Count
435
346. All of the factual representations contained above and following are incorporated by this
reference. To reiterate the facts and common law applicable to the many frauds which
occurred in this case, plaintiff alleges the following specifics:
Summary and Brief Description of the Actions

Constituting Common Law Fraud
347. Starting about the year 2000 the four corporations named above in 308 which were owned
by, relatives and business associates, began to rig bids and conspire to allocate bids to one
another. By this process those corporations managed to acquire a virtual monopoly on
infrastructure contracts in the District of Columbia.
348. The officers, Board Members and Directors of those corporations include:
i. Florentino Gregorio President, Board Member, Anchor Construction
Corporation
ii. Jose Rodrigues, President, Board Member Fort Myer Construction Corporation;
Board Member, Anchor Construction Corporation.
Board Member Civil Construction L.L.C.
iii. Cristina R. Gregorio
Board Member, Anchor Construction Corporation
iv. Francisco Rodrigues Neto Vice President, Board Member of Fort Myer
Construction Corporation, Board Member, Anchor Construction
Corporation, President, Treasurer, Board Member, Capitol Paving
of D.C. Inc
v. Lewis Shrensky Treasurer, Secretary, Fort Myer Construction Corporation
Board Member, Civil Construction L.L.C.
112
Eleventh Count
436
349. Sometime later about August 20, 2008, thru September 26, 2009. the Plaintiff herein (CNA
Inc. began to bid upon service and infrastructure contracts in District of Columbia. These
were:
CNA bid
$5,040,000.00 (corrected filed lowest

bidder)
CNA bid
CNA bid $54, 252,805.00 (lowest bidder)
v. DPW DCKT-2009-B-0003
CNA bid $ 3, 639,901.00 (lowest bidder)
vi. DCDOT DCKA-2009-B-0193 CNA bid $2,376,095.90 (4th lowest corrected bidder)
350. On all but 2, CNA Inc. was the low bidder. CNA was a qualified a qualified bidder that met
all other bidding requirements.
The Conspiracy:
351. The purpose of the conspiracy is to monopolize and control all of the infrastructure
contracts in the District of Columbia to eliminate competition and raise prices.. The above
four corporations aided and abetted by Western Surety Company accomplished that
objective. Those entities have effectively dominated the infrastructure contracting process
for more than 8 years.
352. In order to do this, it was a necessary operational fact, to suborn a number of key employees
in the District of Columbia Government. It is clear from the results, the four Defendant
construction companies had total domination of infrastructure contracts in District of
113
Eleventh Count
437
Columbia. The four construction companies and Western Surety Company are thereby in
violation of 15 USC Sec. 1, et seq. . That statutory violation creates a presumption of
liability for this count.. Also, nevertheless details are furnished of the elements of Common
Law fraud
353. Similarly, DCWASAs key employees, board of directors, and officers acted for their own
benefit, but the actions of the corporation damaged the plaintiff herein nevertheless.
Therefore plaintiff alleges that both the District of Columbia and DCWASA are coconspirators with full liability, jointly and severally with all defendants named herein.
354. As alleged above, plaintiff has no doubt that more co-conspirators shall be discovered upon
inquiry via court authorized discovery. Plaintiff estimates the number of those employees
to be at least 25 additional persons who have committed additional unlawful acts herein.
355. The Defendants succeeded in acquiring co- conspirators within the District of Columbia
Government. Those co-conspirators were necessarily aware of the unlawful actions by the 5
corporations listed above. Starting at the top; the Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of Washington,
DC, certainly knew or should have known of the interlocking directorates and the falsity of
the non-collusion affidavits from the existing corporate documents of the four Defendant
contracting corporations. The Mayor had the full benefit of the legal standards available to
him, including the Attorney General of the District of Columbia. That office, as a matter of
routine, must necessarily know the Board of Directors and Management Teams of the four
Defendant construction companies , the composition of each District of Columbia
114
Eleventh Count
438
corporation and/or the management each bidder as a requirement of DCs oversight

function.
356. The District of Columbia Government failed to follow its own regulations, failed to
consider its regulations and the law governing the letting of contracts which must consider,
and a minimum , the federal laws prohibiting bid rigging, restraint of trade, monopoly and
the other unlawful acts detailed herein. On information and belief, the entire management
structure has been suborned by the acts of defendants herein, conspiring together.
357. CNA Inc. was damaged by the deceptive practices of the co-conspirators in the Defendant
District of Columbia Department of Small and Local Business Development which resulted
in the denials of awards to CNA Inc. as the low bidder on IFBs:
i. DCWASA
IFB # 080020
ii. DOT DCKA-2009-B-0025

iii. DCDOT DCKA-2009-B-0193 CNA bid
The Violations
358. Under DC Law, independent and competitive bidding is required on all contracts of the
nature described in this Complaint.. Another requirement was to have a bid bond.
359. Pursuant to the bid bond requirement. Each bidder is required to state under oath that the
bidding is non- collusive. In fact Plaintiff alleges that consistent and repetitive collusion did
take place and that the same bonding company was used by three of the contractors and that
bonding company, each Defendant herein was as a matter of fact aware of the commonality
115
Eleventh Count
439
of interest in the four Defendant corporations, including, common officers, common

employees, interlocking board of directors and a generalized pattern of cooperation and
collusion between the four Defendant companies.
360. As a matter of fact each and every key employee (of the five colluding companies) knew of
the cooperation between the companies. Those employees are, Defendant Lewis Shrensky,
Defendant Jose Rodrigues, Defendant Francisco Rodrigues Neto, Defendant Florentino,
Gregorio, Defendant Cristina R. Gregoria and Defendant Paul T. Bruflat, of Western
Surety Company. The above listed employees had actual knowelde of the collusive actions
and fals affidavits filed in support of the above listed IFBs.
361. On information and belief, it has become standard practice for the four Defendant
companies, aided and abetted by and through their officers, directors and employees and
other assocaited therewith, (some of whom are unknown thus presently remain unnamed) to
force, or coerce, or bribe via gratuities District of Columbia employees and or employees of
Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority to obtain, and steer contracts
to these colluding , monopolistic companies.
116
Eleventh Count
440
362. Through this collusive process the four bidding Defendant corporations acquired several
infrastructure contracts from the IFBs listed below 5 of which were bid upon by CNA Inc.
i. DCWASA IFB # 080020 CNA bid $11,154,500.00 (lowest bidder)
v. DCDOT DCKA-2009-B-0193 CNA bid
$2,376,095.90 (4th lowest corrected
bidder)
Fraudulent Unsolicited Contract Award

363. On July 16, 2009 the Government of District of Columbia, District of Columbia Department
of Transportation, over the signature of Jerry M Carter, contracting Officer of IFB DCKA2009-B-0025 (Pavement Restoration), unilaterally and without bidding, under a new
solicitation/contract number, IFB DCKA-2009-C-0025, (See Exhibit L.1/3, L.1.4)
(Pavement Restoration), without notice to any potential bidder,(s) unlawfully awarded, (See
Document 1 this Count) at a price about $14 million higher (than the original CNA bid,
DCKA-20090-B-0025). (See Document 1 in this count).
364. Contract Awards, for IFB DCKA 2009-B-0025 on information and belief were duplicate
and excessive over Plaintiff CNA Inc. bid of $54, 252,805
Circa June ,2010DCKA 2009-B-0025 $68,568,650.40 to Fort Myer Construction Corp.
July 15, 2010 DCKA 2009-C-0025
$13,945,755.00 to Fort Myer Construction Corp.
July 16, 2010 DCKA 2009-C-0025
$68,581,150.40 to Fort Myer Construction Corp.

117
Eleventh Count
441
On information and belief, these contract awards were never formally or lawfully approved
in written form by any person subject to the chain of command, such as District of
Columbia Committee on Public Works and Transportation and District of Columbia
Council, on oversight in the District of Columbia Government,
On further information and belief, all of the officials that should have disapproved or
prevented the award of these contracts (which is patently a violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec 1 et
seq, and the regulations and common law of the District of Columbia), was an intentional
fraud and breach of trust by each such named defendant. It was intentional because each
corporation and each defendant (and presently unknown others) knew the award
was outside of, and intended to evade the statutory contract award controls system. Each of
the named defendants. knew of or should have known of the unlawful circumstances of the
award. By this award the contract bid upon by CNA Inc. (which was the low bidder), was
taken from CNA Inc. and awarded to the Defendants herein by collusion with the very
District of Columbia Governmental officials who are assigned, elected public executors or
public appointed officials with oversight authority for the IFB solicitations in question
DCKA-2009-C-0025 and DCKA-2009-B-0025 .
365. On information and belief there is no information in District of Columbia's records
supporting the increase in price of at least 13 million up to $68 million, nor any lawful
reason for the deviation from normal lawful bidding practices. By that act, at least
$ 13,945,755.00, DCKA-2009-B-0026 was diverted from the taxpayers of the District of
Columbia.
118
Eleventh Count
442
366. On further information and belief, each person in the DC chain of command received,
beginning with the Mayor, some type or amount of benefit as illegal payment of gratuities
or bribes for his/her failure to exercise oversight and/or prevention of the award of this bid.
This conduct, and award was therefore a fraudulent act committed by each of the named
Defendant individual employees, elected or appointed public officials of the District of
Columbia Government and each of the four colluding contracting corporations, their
bonding company and associated persons, (both named and unnamed in this complaint) to
date who participated in by omission or commission the fraudulent acts. (See Attachment I)
Allegation of the Specifics of Common Law Fraud for this Federal Claim, under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the common law of District of Columbia
367. The above and below facts furnished the:

i. (1) the who, what, when, where, and how" of the alleged scheme.
ii. In the context of fraud claims, many courts require the pleader to allege
(2) time, place, and contents of the false representations or omissions, and
explain how they were fraudulent
iii. The following information, listing their participation in the conspiracy and the unlawful
actions herein pertaining to the 5 Defendant contracting corporations, Western Surety
Company, the employees of the District of Columbia Government, and named individual
who participated demonstrates
(2) the identity of the person making the misrepresentations,
119
Eleventh Count
443
iv. The unlawful actions as described above harmed the Plaintiff and public by the awarding of
unlawful contracts.
(3) how the misrepresentations misled the plaintiff, and
v. The corporate conspirators gained unlawfully the contracts, the bonding company gained the
premiums, and the government largely unknown gained improper advances, gratuities or as
follows inducements
(4) what the speaker gained from the fraud. 1II In the end, the pleaded facts must give rise to a
"strong inference" of fraud to Comport with Rule 9(b).
B . District of Columbia Common Law

The elements of fraud (Source: Schiff v. AARP, 697 A.2d 1193, 1198 (D.C. 1997)
368.
i. Element: the false representation or willful omission of a material fact;

ii. Element: knowledge of the falsity;
iii. Element an intention to induce reliance;
iv Element : action taken in reliance on the representation; and
v. Element : damages suffered as a result of such reliance.
369.
Detail Listing of Common Law Violations By Each Person
370.
A. Defendant Construction Companies
371.
i. Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation

The What Fort Myer Construction Corporation obtained the contracts.
How Fort Myer Construction Corporation obtained the contracts:
120
Eleventh Count
444
Fort Myer Construction Corporation with other named Defendant(s), colluded, allocated
contracts amongst themselves, conspired with Western Surety Company bonding company,
submitted bids above market, used interlocking board of directors and management,
influened government employees to exclude others and city council. On information and
belief were giving gratuites to government employees.
Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation submitted false Non-Collusion Affidavits
and other documents intended for Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and Sewer
Authority, and DC Government Contracting officials that were intended to induce reliance
on these documents in order that the Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation would
win some of the IFB solicitations stated above.
This occurred from August 20, 2008, through September 26, 2009, in Washington, DC.
372. ii. Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation
The What Anchor Construction Corporation obtained the contracts.
How Anchor Construction Corporation obtained the contracts:
Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation with other named Defendant(s), colluded,
allocated contracts amongst themselves, conspired with Western Surety Company bonding
company, submitted bids above market, used interlocking board of directors and
management, influened government employees to exclude others and city council. On
information and belief were giving gratuites to government employees.
373. Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation submitted false Non-Collusion Affidavits and
other documents intended for Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and Sewer
121
Eleventh Count
445
on these documents in order that the Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation would
win some of the IFB solicitations stated above.
374. This occurred from August 20, 2008, through September 26, 2009, in Washington, DC.
375. iii. Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc.
The What: Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc.: obtained the contracts.
How Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc. obtained the contracts:
376. Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc. with other named Defendant(s), colluded, allocated
belief, all four contracting corporations and the Defendant assoiates of the 4contruction
companies, were giving gratuites to government employees.
377. iv . Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc. submitted false Non-Collusion Affidavits
and other documents intended for Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and Sewer
on these documents in order that the Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc. would win
some of the IFB solicitations stated above.
122
Eleventh Count
446
379. v. Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C.

The What: Civil Construction L.L.C..obtained the contracts.
How Civil Construction L.L.C. obtained the contracts:
380. Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. with other named Defendant(s), colluded, allocated
belief were giving gratuites to government employees.
381. Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C.. submitted false Non-Collusion Affidavits and other
documents intended for Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, and
DC Government Contracting officials that were intended to induce reliance on these
documents in order that the Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. would win some of the
IFB solicitations stated above. This occurred from August 20, 2008, through September 26,
2009, in Washington, DC.
382. vii Defendant Florentino Gregorio

Defendant Florentino Gregorio, as a corporate officer of Anchor Construction Corporation, with
other named Defendant(s), colluded, allocated contracts amongst themselves, conspired
with Western Surety Company bonding company, submitted bids above market, used
interlocking board of directors and management, influened government employees to
123
Eleventh Count
447
exclude others and city council. On information and belief were giving gratuites to
government employees.
383. Defendant Florentino Gregorio, as a corporate officer of Anchor Construction Corporation,
authorized, or allowed submission of false Non-Collusion Affidavits and other documents
intended for Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, and DC
Government Contracting officials that were intended to induce reliance on these documents
in order that the Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation would win some of the IFB
solicitations stated above. This occurred from August 20, 2008, through September 26,
384. viii. Defendant Jose Rodrigues

Defendant Jose Rodrigues, as a corporate official, Board Member, of Anchor Construction
Corporation, President and Board Member of Fort Myer Construction Corporation and or
Board Member of Civil Construction L.L.C. with other named Defendant(s), colluded,
allocated contracts amongst themselves, conspired with Western Surety Company bonding
company, submitted bids above market, used interlocking board of directors and
management, influened government employees to exclude others and city council. On
information and belief gave or authorized unlawful gratuites to government employees.
385. Defendant Jose Rodrigues, authorized, or allowed submission of false Non-Collusion

Affidavits and other documents intended for Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and
124
Eleventh Count
448
Sewer Authority, and DC Government Contracting officials that were intended to induce
reliance on these documents in order that the Defendant Fort Myer Construction
Corporation, Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation and or Civil Construction L.L.C.
would win some of the IFB solicitations stated above.
387. ix Defendant Cristina R. Gregorio
Defendant Cristina R. Gregorio, as a corporate official and Board Member of Anchor
Construction Corporation, with other named Defendant(s), colluded, allocated contracts
amongst themselves, conspired with Western Surety Company bonding company, submitted
bids above market, used interlocking board of directors and management, influened
government employees to exclude others and city council. On information and belief were
giving gratuites to government employees.
388. Defendant Cristina R. Gregorio, as a corporate officer and Board Member of Anchor
Construction Corporation, authorized, or allowed submission of false Non-Collusion
Affidavits and other documents intended for Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority, and DC Government Contracting officials that were intended to induce
reliance on these documents in order that the Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation
would win some of the IFB solicitations stated above. This occurred from August 20, 2008,
through September 26, 2009, in Washington, DC.
389. x. Defendant Francisco Rodrigues Neto
125
Eleventh Count
449
Defendant Jose Rodrigues, as a Vice President and , Board Member, of Fort Myer Construction
Corporation, Board Member of Anchor Construction Corporation and President, Treasurer,
and Board Member of Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc with other named
Defendant(s), colluded, allocated contracts amongst themselves, conspired with Western
Surety Company bonding company, submitted bids above market, used interlocking board
of directors and management, influened government employees to exclude others, and the
District of Columbia city council. On information and belief gave or authorized unlawful
gratuites to government employees.
390. Defendant Francisco Rodrigues Neto, authorized, or allowed submission of false NonCollusion Affidavits and other documents intended for Defendant (s) District of Columbia
Water and Sewer Authority, and DC Government Contracting officials that were intended
to induce reliance on these documents in order that the Defendant(S) Fort Myer
Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation and or Capitol
Paving of D.C. Inc, where one or the other would win some of the IFB solicitations stated
above. This occurred from August 20, 2008, through September 26, 2009, in Washington,
DC.
B. District of Columbia Elected Official, Appointed Officials and Employees
392. Defendant Peter J. Nickles, Appointed Official - Attorney General of the District of
Columbia
On information and belief, as a matter of either actual knowledge and/or gross negligence
Defendant Peter Nickles was subject to and/or accepted improper or unlawful inducements,
126
Eleventh Count
450
yielded to pressure from superiors and/or Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of Washington, DC to

allow the award or approval of the contracts associated with the named IFBs. Defendant
Peter Nickles, because of his position, knew or should have known of the interlocking
directorates and the falsity of the non-collusion affidavits from the existing corporate
documents of the four Defendant contracting corporations: Fort Myer Construction
Corporation, Anchor Construction Corporation, Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc and Civil
Construction L.L.C..
393. The Attorney General had the full benefit of the law. That office, as a matter of routine,
must necessarily have known of the interlocking Board of Directors and Management
Teams of the four Defendant named construction companies, and the violating of federal
and District of Columbia law being committed. This occurred from August 20, 2008,
ii. Defendant Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of Washington, DC (Elected Public Official)

394. Defendant Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of Washington, DC approved and or did not prevent the
award of the unlawful contracts. On information and belief, he also pressured others by
threats of termination or other threats and pressures to allow the unlawful contracts to be
awarded to Defendant(s) Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor
Construction Corporation, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc and or Defendant Civil
Construction L.L.C.. Defendant Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of Washington, DC, because of
his position, knew or should have known of the interlocking directorates and the falsity of
127
Eleventh Count
451
the non-collusion affidavits from the existing corporate documents of the four Defendant
contracting corporations: Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Anchor Construction
Corporation, Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc and Civil Construction L.L.C..
395. Defendant Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of Washington, DC had the full benefit of the legal
authorities.
396. The Executive office of the Mayor of District of Columbia, as a matter of routine, must
necessarily have known the composition of the Board of Directors and Management Teams
of the four Defendant named construction companies: Defendant(s) Fort Myer Construction
Corporation, Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation, Defendant Capitol Paving of
D.C. Inc and or Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C.. This occurred from August 20, 2008,
397. Defendant David P. Gragan, Chief Procurement Officer, DC (Appointed Official)

398. Defendant David P. Gragan, Chief Procurement Officer, received pressure from Adrian M.
Fenty, Mayor of Washington, DC, and in turn did himself pressure subordinates. by threats
of termination or other threats or pressures in order to award unlawful contracts to the
Defendant(s) Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor Construction
Corporation, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc and or Defendant Civil Construction
L.L.C. and, as his duty under the law, did not attempt to prevent the award of the unlawful
contracts.
128
Eleventh Count
452
399. Defendant David P. Gragan because of his position knew or should have known of the
interlocking directorates and the falsity of the non-collusion affidavits from the existing
corporate documents of the four Defendant contracting corporations: Fort Myer
Construction Corporation, Anchor Construction Corporation, Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc.
and Civil Construction L.L.C.. Defendant David P. Gragan had the full benefit of the legal
authorities in the District of Columbia.
400. Defendant David P. Gragan, as a matter of routine, must have necessarily known that the
Board of Directors and Management Teams of the four Defendant named construction
companies: Defendant(s) Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor
Construction Corporation, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc and or Defendant Civil
Construction L.L.C. were working in concert to erode the applicable law.
401. Defendant David P. Gragan must necessarily have known from years of close supervision
that all four Defendant Corporations and Western Surety Company were colluding parties.
403. iv. Defendant Jerry M. Carter, Contracting Officer
Defendant Jerry M. Carter as a Contracting Officer, received pressure (See Exhibit Q.2.3, Q.2.4)
from Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of Washington, DC, Defendant David P. Gragan and or
others and in turn pressured others to award unlawful contracts to the Defendant(s) Fort
Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation, Defendant
Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc and or Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. and did not attempt
to prevent the award of the unlawful contracts. Defendant Jerry M. Carter because of his
129
Eleventh Count
453
position knew or should have known of the interlocking directorates and the falsity of the
non-collusion affidavits from the existing corporate documents and or frequent meetings
with employees of the four Defendant contracting corporations: Fort Myer Construction
Corporation, Anchor Construction Corporation, Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc. and Civil
Construction L.L.C.. Defendant Jerry ` Carter had the full benefit of the legal authorities.
404. Defendant Jerry M. Carter as a matter of routine, must necessarily know the Board of
Directors and Management Teams of the four Defendant named construction companies:
Corporation, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc. and or Defendant Civil Construction
L.L.C.. This occurred from August 20, 2008, through September 26, 2009, in Washington,
DC.
405. v. Defendant Gabe Klein District Director (Appointed Official)
Defendant Gabe Klein, District Director as District Director, received pressure from Adrian M.
Fenty, Mayor of Washington, DC, Defendant David P. Gragan and or others and in turn
pressured others to award unlawful contracts to the Defendant(s) Fort Myer Construction
D.C. Inc. and or Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. and did not attempt to prevent the
award of the unlawful contracts.
406. Defendant Gabe Klein, District Director because of his position knew or should have known
of the interlocking directorates and the falsity of the non-collusion affidavits from the
existing corporate documents and or frequent meetings with employees of the four
130
Eleventh Count
454
Defendant contracting corporations: Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Anchor

Construction Corporation, Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc. and Civil Construction L.L.C..
407. Defendant Gabe Klein, District Director had the full benefit of the legal authorities.
Defendant Gabe Klein, District Director as a matter of routine, must necessarily know the
Board of Directors and Management Teams of the four Defendant named construction
companies: Defendant(s) Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor
Construction Corporation, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc. and or Defendant Civil
Construction L.L.C..
This occurred from August 20, 2008, through September 26, 2009, in Washington, DC.
408.
vii Defendant James Roberts, Contracting Officer
Defendant James Roberts as a Contracting Officer, received pressure (See Exhibit Q.2.4) from
Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of Washington, DC, Defendant David P. Gragan and or others and
in turn pressured others to award unlawful contracts to the Defendant(s) Fort Myer
Paving of D.C. Inc and or Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. and did not attempt to
prevent the award of the unlawful contracts.
409. Defendant James Roberts because of his position knew or should have known of the
corporate documents and or frequent meetings with employees of the four Defendant
131
Eleventh Count
455
contracting corporations: Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Anchor Construction

Corporation, Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc. and Civil Construction L.L.C.. Defendant James
Roberts had the full benefit of the legal authorities. Defendant James Roberts as a matter of
Defendant named construction companies: Defendant(s) Fort Myer Construction
D.C. Inc. and or Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C.. This occurred from August 20, 2008,
410.
viii Defendant Jim Graham, Chairperson (Council Member Ward 1) (Elected Public
Official
Defendant Jim Graham, Chairperson, received pressure from Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of
Washington, DC, and in turn pressure subordinates and District of Columbia Council
members. by threats of termination or other threats or pressures to approve through, District
of Columbia council proceedings, and award unlawful contracts to the Defendant(s) Fort
Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation, Defendant
Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc and or Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. and did not attempt
to prevent the award of the unlawful contracts.
411. Defendant Jim Graham, Chairperson because of his position knew or should have known of
the interlocking directorates and the falsity of the non-collusion affidavits from the existing
132
Eleventh Count
456

and Civil Construction L.L.C.. Defendant Jim Graham, Chairperson had the full benefit of
the legal authorities. Defendant Jim Graham, Chairperson, as a matter of routine, must
necessarily know the Board of Directors and Management Teams of the four Defendant
named construction companies: Defendant(s) Fort Myer Construction Corporation,
Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc and or
Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C.. This occurred from August 20, 2008, through
September 26, 2009, in Washington, DC.
412.
ix, Ted G. Loza, (former) Chief of Staff, Appointed by Elected Official
Council Member Ward 1
Defendant Ted G. Loza,, as former Chief of Staff for Jim Graham, Council Member and
Chairperson received pressure from Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of Washington, DC, Council
members and or others and in turn pressured others to approve through, District of
Columbia Council, Committee on Public Works and Transportation proceedings, to have
the District of Columbia Council, Committee on Public Works and Transportation approve
and or facilitate awards of unlawful contracts to the Defendant(s) Fort Myer Construction
D.C. Inc and or Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. and did not attempt to prevent the
133
Eleventh Count
457
413. Defendant Ted G. Loza, because of his position knew or should have known of the
and Civil Construction L.L.C.. Defendant Ted G. Loza had the full benefit of the legal
authorities. Defendant Ted G. Loza as a matter of routine, must necessarily know the Board
of Directors and Management Teams of the four Defendant named construction companies:
DC.
414.
x. Steven Hernndez (Legislative & Budget Director)
Defendant Steven Hernndez , as Legislative & Budget Director received pressure from Adrian
M. Fenty, Mayor of Washington, DC, Council members and or others and in turn pressured
others to approve through, District of Columbia Council, Committee on Public Works and
Transportation proceedings, and have the District of Columbia Council, Committee on
Public Works and Transportation to approve and or award unlawful contracts to the
Defendant(s) Fort Myer Construction Corporation,
134
Eleventh Count
458
415. Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc and or
Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. and did not attempt to prevent the award of the
unlawful contracts.
416. Defendant Steven Hernndez, because of his position knew or should have known of the
and Civil Construction L.L.C.. Defendant Steven Hernndez had the full benefit of the
legal authorities. Defendant Steven Hernndez as a matter of routine, must necessarily
know the Board of Directors and Management Teams of the four Defendant named
construction companies: Defendant(s) Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant
Anchor Construction Corporation, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc and or Defendant
Civil Construction L.L.C.. This occurred from August 20, 2008, through September 26,
417. xi. Defendant DC Department of Small and Local Business Development and
Appointed Officials or Employees
Defendant Department of Small and Local Business Development Officials , received pressure
from superiors to certify Defendant (s) Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant
Civil Construction L.L.C. as Small and Local Disadvantaged Enterprises, which facilitated
bidding advantages to the Defendant(s) though the named Defendants did not meet the
135
Eleventh Count
459
certification requirements, because their annual sales averages were over the maximum
allowed by the Department of Small and Local Business Development.
418. Defendant Department of Small and Local Business Development Officials because of
their position knew or should have known of the interlocking directorates and the falsity of
the non-collusion affidavits from the existing corporate documents and applications for
certification of the four Defendant contracting corporations: Fort Myer Construction
Construction L.L.C.. Defendant Department of Small and Local Business Development
Officials had the full benefit of the legal authorities.
419. Defendant Department of Small and Local Business Development Officials as a matter of
3. Defendant District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Executive Director or

Employees
420. i. Defendant Jerry Johnson, Former, General Manager Defendant (s) District of
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DCWASA)
136
Eleventh Count
460
Defendant Jerry Johnson, former General Manager of DCWASA, received pressure from
his superiors and others and in turn pressure subordinates by threats of termination or other
threats or pressures to approve through, and award unlawful contracts to the Defendant(s)
Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation,
Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc and or Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. and did
not attempt to prevent the award of the unlawful contracts.
421. Defendant Jerry Johnson, because of his position knew or should have known of the
and Civil Construction L.L.C..
422. Defendant Jerry Johnson, had the full benefit of the legal authorities. Defendant Jerry
Johnson, as a matter of routine, must necessarily know the Board of Directors and
Management Teams of the four Defendant named construction companies: Defendant(s)
Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation,
Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc and or Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C.. This
occurred from August 20, 2008, through September 26, 2009, in Washington, DC.
423. ii. Defendant Avis Russell, General Counsel of District of Columbia Water and Sewer
Authority
Defendant Avis Russell received pressure from superiors and others and in turn pressured
subordinates by threats or pressures to approve or allow the approval and of , and or award
of unlawful DCWASA contracts for the above listed IFBs to the Defendant(s) Fort Myer
137
Eleventh Count
461

Paving of D.C. Inc and or Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. and did not attempt to
prevent the award of the unlawful contracts.
424. Defendant Avis Russell, because of her position knew or should have known of the
and Civil Construction L.L.C.. Defendant Avis Russell had the full benefit of the staff and
advice of DCWASA.
425. Defendant Avis Russell as a matter of routine, must necessarily have known the make-up
of the Board of Directors and Management Teams of the four Defendant named
426. iii. Defendant Carlo Enciso, Employee of DCWASA Procurement Department

Defendant Carlo Enciso
Defendant Carlo Enciso received pressure from superiors and others and in turn pressured
subordinates and others to approve or allow the approval of, and award of unlawful
DCWASA contracts for the above listed IFBs to the Defendant(s) Fort Myer Construction
138
Eleventh Count
462

D.C. Inc and or Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. and did not attempt to prevent the
427. Defendant Carlo Enciso , because of his position knew or should have known of the
and Civil Construction L.L.C.. Defendant Carlo Enciso had the full benefit of the legal
authorities. Defendant Carlo Enciso as a matter of routine must necessarily know the Board
of Directors and Management Teams of the four Defendant named construction companies:
DC.
428. iv. Defendant William M. Walker Chairman, Board of Directors DCWASA
Defendant William M. Walker, Chairman received pressure from superiors and others and
in turn pressured subordinates, and DCWAS Board of Director and others to approve or
allow the approval of, and award of unlawful DCWASA contracts for the above listed IFBs
to the Defendant(s) Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor Construction
L.L.C. and did not attempt to prevent the award of the unlawful contracts.
139
Eleventh Count
463
429. Defendant William M. Walker , because of his position knew or should have known of the
and Civil Construction L.L.C.. Defendant William M. Walker had the full benefit of the
legal authorities. Defendant William M. Walker as a matter of routine must necessarily
know the Board of Directors and Management Teams of the four Defendant named
430. v. Defendant Neil Albert - Board Member, DCWASA
Defendant Neil Albert received pressure from superiors and others and in turn pressured
subordinates and others on the DCWASA Board of Directors to approve or allow the
approval of, and award of unlawful DCWASA contracts for the above listed IFBs to the
L.L.C. and did not attempt to prevent the award of the unlawful contracts. Defendant Neil
Albert , because of his position knew or should have known of the interlocking directorates
and the falsity of the non-collusion affidavits from the existing corporate documents of the
140
Eleventh Count
464
four Defendant contracting corporations: Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Anchor

Construction Corporation, Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc. and Civil Construction L.L.C..
431. Defendant Neil Albert had the full benefit of the legal authorities. Defendant Neil Albert
as a matter of routine, must necessarily know the Board of Directors and Management
Teams of the four Defendant named construction companies: Defendant(s) Fort Myer
Paving of D.C. Inc and or Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C.. This occurred from August
20, 2008, through September 26, 2009, in Washington, DC.
432. vi Defendant Joseph Cotruvo, Chairman, Retail Services Committee
Defendant Joseph Cotruvo, as Chairman, Retail Services Committee received pressure
from superiors and others and in turn pressured subordinates and others to approve or allow
the approval of, and award of unlawful DCWASA contracts for the above listed IFBs to the
L.L.C. and did not attempt to prevent the award of the unlawful contracts. Defendant
Joseph Cotruvo, because of his position knew or should have known of the interlocking
directorates and the falsity of the non-collusion affidavits from the existing corporate
documents of the four Defendant contracting corporations: Fort Myer Construction
Construction L.L.C.. Defendant Carlo Enciso had the full benefit of the legal authorities.
141
Eleventh Count
465
433. Defendant Joseph Cotruvo as a matter of routine, must necessarily know the Board of
Directors and Management Teams of the four Defendant named construction companies:
DC.
434. 4. Defendant Western Surety Company
435. i. Defendant Paul T. Bruflat, Senior Vice President, Western Surety Company
Defendant Paul T. Bruflat as Senior Vice President of Western Surety Company received
pressure from superiors and others and in turn pressured subordinates and others to issue bid
bonds to Defendant(s) Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor
Construction Corporation, and Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. which enabled the
Defendants Construction companies to bid and or win awards on one or more of the IFBs
listed. to the Defendant(s) Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor
Construction Corporation, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc. and or Defendant Civil
Construction L.L.C.
436. Defendant Paul T. Bruflat, because of his position, and signing of documents, knew or
should have known of the interlocking directorates and the falsity of the non-collusion
affidavits from the existing corporate documents of the four Defendant contracting
corporations: Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Anchor Construction Corporation,
Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc. and Civil Construction L.L.C.. Defendant Carlo Enciso had
142
Eleventh Count
466
the full benefit of the legal authorities. Defendant Paul T. Bruflat as a matter of routine,
must necessarily know the Board of Directors and Management Teams of the four
Damages by CNA Inc.
437. CNA Inc. was damaged by the failure to be awarded the 5 contracts in question in the
amount of profit $$6,051,280.07 as:
D. IFB #DCKA-2009-B-0025
E. IFB #DCKA-2009-B-0193
Profit 8% of
Profit 8% of
Profit 8% of
Profit 8% of
Profit 8% of
$ 11,154,500.00 = $892,360.00
$ 5,040,000.00 = $403,200.00
$ 2,817,600.00 = $225,408.00
$ 54,252,805.00 = $4,340,224.40
$ 2,376,095.90 = $190,087.67
$6,051,280.07
438. In addition CNA Inc. was damaged by the exclusion from all future contracts projected as a
total damage encompassing the next 12 years in the amount of $ 42,426,418.99: (See Table
2, page 185 ).
439. In addition, these fraudulent practices are far more widespread than these particular 5
contracts and upon information and belief the District of Columbia citizenry and the general
public are being damaged by these unlawful practices, which include not only these
common law violations, but also clearly violations of 15 USC. Sec. 1 et seq.
143
Eleventh Count
467
The Means and Effect of the Unlawful Actions

440. The officials of the District of Columbia starting with the Mayor, proceeding through the
District of Columbia and the various departments of procurement that processed these 5
contracts had access to the corporate records, including articles of incorporations, franchise
tax reports, income tax returns, licenses and all of the false representations made by the co conspirators.
441. Therefore Plaintiff alleges that these officials and in particular, the Office of the Attorney
General had actual knowledge of the collusion. The District of Columbia office of
Defendant District of Columbia Department of Small and Local Business Development
officials, and /or its staff had knowledge the colluding companies had exceed the income
limits specified by the regulations ( See Exhibit). Therefore it is patently obvious, there
actions were unlawful. Therefore, there arises a strong inference of improper influence,
exerted by those persons superiors, who upon information and believe were: the Attorney
General of the District of Columbia and Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of Washington, DC. The
number of such incidents and the magnitude of the dollar value, the unlawfully awarded
contracts, and the sheer number of people involved precluded further identification at this
time, but these acts most certainly occurred. Therefore, a provision in this complaint has
been made to add unnamed co-conspirators expected to be identified later as additional coconspirators in this Complaint.
442. Defendant DCWASA and DCDOT made itself a party to this fraud by accepting and
ultimately awarding the IFB to one of the conspiring companies, when DCWASA and
144
Eleventh Count
468
DCDOT, through its conspiring employees had actual knowledge that Defendant companies
shared common ownership.
443. Defendant Department of Small and Local Business Development and employees and or
appointed Directors aided and abetted primary Defendant Companies, Fort Myer
Construction Corporation, Anchor Construction Corporation, Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc
and Civil Construction L.L.C. to defraud procurement system(s) of District of Columbia
Government and non - District of Columbia Government , Federal funded corporations.
These unlawful acts allowed all Defendant(s) to win using affirmative action preference
points or deceptively endorsed certified business status on all IFB solicitations .
444. Defendant Western made itself a party to this fraud by securing the bids for all of the
Defendant Construction Companies on a single bond. Thus facilitating this collusion. Since
Defendant Western Surety Company wrote multiple bonds for the four Defendant
contractors, it had actual knowledge of the unlawful collusion that took place as
Complained about herein.
445. DCWASA, DCWASA-BOD, DCWASA-PD, DCWASA-RSC, DCDOT and CPWT
perpetrated this fraud by accepting bids from Defendant Construction Companies when it
had actual knowledge that the Defendant Construction Companies shared common
ownership. ( See Exhibit O)
446. Defendant Western aided and facilitated the fraud by securing the bonds for the Defendant
Construction Companies. ( See Exhibit J.1)
145
Eleventh Count
469
447. Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation employed Defendant Lewis F. Shrensky as
the Secretary, Treasurer, Director and Registered Agent
448. Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation employed Defendant Jose Rodriguez as its
Principal Owner, President and Director.
449. Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporations relationships with the other companies
were perpetuated by Defendant Mr. Jose Rodriguezs position as one of the Principal
Managers along with Defendant Mr. Lewis Shrensky for Defendant Civil Construction
L.L.C..
450. Defendant Mr. Rodriguez had further ties with Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation
by acting as its Director along with Defendant Francisco Rodriguez-Neto.
451. Defendant Francisco Rodriguez-Neto also held a position as the Vice President and
Director of Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation.
452. Defendant Francisco Rodriguez-Neto was also an employee of Defendant Capitol Paving of
D.C., Inc. as the President, Treasurer and Director.
453. Accordingly, the Defendant companies, through Defendant s Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Shrensky,
and Mr. Rodriguez-Neto, engaged and conspired into making bids in a scheme or
systematic course of conduct by means of a fraudulent pretense and representation that they
were separate entities with intent to defraud Plaintiff CNA and other bidders for the IFB.
454. As a result of Defendant companies fraudulent misrepresentation of their entities, they
successfully conspired to deceive Plaintiff when DCWASA Board of Directors approved
the award of IFBs 080020, 090080, and 090020, and decided to terminate Plaintiffs Bid
146
Eleventh Count
470
Application without clear and convincing evidence or just cause and in violation of the
Regulations. Plaintiff CNA Inc. request that each individually named Defendant be held
personally liable in his/her name as a co-conspirator performing unlawful acts beyond the
scope of his/her lawful employment in violation of the civil and criminal laws of the District
of Columbia and the United States of America
455. Consequently, under the District of Columbia Code 22-3221, Defendant Companies are
subject to liability for pecuniary loss to Plaintiff who acted in justifiable reliance upon their
fraudulent representation.
456. Plaintiff has taken all reasonable approaches and methods to mitigate damages by
suspending all Plaintiffs work related to the Contract, refraining from submitting bids to
other construction bidding opportunities, and seeking the available administrative remedies.
Since those remedies are now exhausted, Plaintiff has no recourse but to file this action.
457. As a result of Defendants fraudulent conduct, Plaintiff suffered out-of pocket loss for
relying, to his detriment, on the good faith belief that Defendants did not commit legal
wrong or breach during the bidding process.
458. Therefore, Plaintiff suffered profit losses of earnings on each of the directed solicitations at
the reasonable rate of profit of 8% on IFB solicitations:
i. DCWASA
IFB # 080020
ii. DCWASA
bidder)
iii. DCWASA
IFB # 090080
CNA bid
$5,040,000.00 (corrected filed lowest
IFB # 090020
CNA bid

147
Eleventh Count
471
CNA bid $ 3, 639,901.00 (lowest bidder)
v. DPW DCKT-2009-B-0003
vi. DCDOT DCKA-2009-B-0193 CNA bid
459.
A. DCWASA IFB # 080020 Replacement of Small Diameter Priority Water Mains for 2008
Construction
Profit 8% of $11,154,500.00 = $892,360.00
$892,360.00
i. Jose Rodrigues
$892,360.00
$892,360.00
or as whole
$892,360.00
$892,360.00

i. Lewis Shrensky
ii. Jose Rodriguez
$892,360.00
$892,360.00
$892,360.00
or as whole
3. Fort Myer Construction Corporation.

ii. Jose Rodrigues
iii. Lewis Shrensky
$892,360.00
$892,360.00
$892,360.00
$892,360.00
or as whole

$892,360.00
$892,360.00
or as whole
$892,360.00
$892,360.00
$892,360.00
15,170,120.00
or as whole
5. Defendant (s) District of Columbia

Water and Sewer Authority
i. Procurement Department
ii. Board of Directors
iii. Retail Services Committee
Damages Requested
6. Defendant Department of Small and 12% Reduction for Affirmative

Local Business Development
Action Defendants Bid $11,997,930.00
Defendant Anchor Construction
Corporation IFB winner
$1,439,751.60
Total Damages Requested (1-6)
$16,609,871.60
148
Eleventh Count
472
B.
DCWASA IFB # 090080 Sewer Liner Replacement
Profit 8% of $5,040,000.00 = $403,200.00

1. Fort Myer Construction, Corporation. $403,200.00
$403,200.00
or as whole
ii. Jose Rodrigues
$403,200.00
iii. Lewis Shrensky
$403,200.00

i. Jose Rodrigues
$403,200.00
$403,200.00
$403,200.00
$403,200.00
$403,200.00
3. Civil Construction, L.L.C.

i. Lewis Shrensky
ii. Jose Rodriguez
$403,200.00
$403,200.00
$403,200.00

$403,200.00
$403,200.00

$403,200.00
$403,200.00
$403,200.00
Damages Requested
or as whole
or as whole
or as whole
or as whole
$ 6,854,400.00
149
Eleventh Count
473
C. DCWASA IFB # 090020 Fire Hydrant Replacement

Profit 8% of $2,817,600.00 = $225,408.00
1. Fort Myer Construction Corporation. $225,408.00
$225,408.00
ii. Jose Rodrigues
$225,408.00
or as whole
iii. Lewis Shrensky
$225,408.00
2. Civil Construction, L.L.C.

i. Lewis Shrensky
ii. Jose Rodriguez
$225,408.00
$225,408.00
$225,408.00
or as whole

$225,408.00
$225,408.00
or as whole

i. Jose Rodrigues
ii Francisco Rodrigues Neto
$225,408.00
$225,408.00
$225,408.00
$225,408.00
$225,408.00

$225,408.00
$225,408.00
$225,408.00
Damages Requested
D. IFB #DCKA-2009-B-0025
or as whole
or as whole
$ 3,831,936.00
Profit 8% of $ 54,252,805.00 = $4,340,224.40

1, Fort Myer Construction Corporation. $4,340,224.40
$4,340,224.40
ii. Jose Rodrigues
$4,340,224.40
or as whole
iii. Lewis Shrensky
$4,340,224.40

$4,340,224.40
$4,340,224.40
} or as whole
150
Eleventh Count
474
3, District of Columbia Department of

Transportation, Office of
Contracting and Procurement
$4,340,224.40
i. David P. Gragan, (Chief Procurement
Officer
$4,340,224.40
ii. Jerry M. Carter, Contracting
Officer.
$4,340,224.40
4. Committee on Public Works and

Transportation
i. Jim Graham
ii. Ted G. Loza
iii. Steven Hernndez
Damages Requested
$4,340,224.40
$4,340,224.40
$4,340,224.40
$4,340,224.40
or as whole
or as whole
$56,422,917.20
.
5. Defendant Department of Small and 12% Reduction for Affirmative
Defendant Fort Myer Construction
Damages Requested
$8,228,238.05
Total Damages Requested (1-5) $ 64,651,155.25
E. IFB #DCKA-2009-B-0193 Safe School Routes
Profit 8% of $2,376,095.90 = $190,087.67
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
ii. Jose Rodrigues
$190,087.67
or as whole
iii. Lewis Shrensky
$190,087.67

i. Jose Rodrigues
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
or as whole
151
Eleventh Count
475

i. Lewis Shrensky
ii. Jose Rodriguez
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
or as whole

$190,087.67
$190,087.67
or as whole
5. District of Columbia Department of

Transportation, Office of Contracting
and Procurement
$190,087.67
i. David P. Gragan, (Chief Procurement
Officer
$190,087.67
ii. Jerry M. Carter, Contracting
Officer.
$190,087.67
6. Committee on Public Works and

Transportation
i. Jim Graham
ii. Ted G. Loza
iii. Steven Hernndez
Damages Requested (1-6)
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
$190,087.67
or as whole
or as whole
$3,991,841.07
.
7 Defendant Department of Small and 12% Reduction for Affirmative
Defendant Anchor Construction
Damages Requested
$ 259,376.76
Total Damages Requested (1-7)
$4,251,217.83
152
Eleventh Count
476
Conclusion
460. Defendants listed in this count, all have a unique or standard participation levels of private
corporations, officers, owners, employees, family members, elected public officials,
appointed officials or directors by public executors and local municipal Government
departments. All used tactics or created strategies designed by joint or separate efforts to
defraud Plaintiff CNA Inc. of gainful financial opportunities.
461. Plaintiffs injury by all Defendants listed in this count, can be repaired by means of
financial restitution and the appropriate injunctive relief.
462. Because Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation acted intentionally with malice
aforethought, Plaintiff prays, that Fort Myer Construction Corporation be found liable
severally for the unlawful profits on contracts received by it. all or part by the Defendant
named on this count in the amount of $ 6,051,280.07.
463. Because the Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation acted intentionally with malice
aforethought, Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages to be paid by all or
part by the Defendant named on this count in the amount of $ 1,711,055.67.
464. Because the Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc acted intentionally with malice
153
Eleventh Count
477
465. Because the Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. acted intentionally with malice
part by the Defendant named on this count in the amount of
$ 1,711,055.67.
466. Because the Defendant Jose Rodrigues acted intentionally with malice aforethought,
Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages to be paid by all or part by the
Defendant named on this count in the amount of $ 9,473,391.41.
467. Because the Defendant Lewis Shrensky acted intentionally with malice aforethought,
468. Because the Defendant Francisco Rodrigues Neto acted intentionally with malice
part by the Defendant named on this count in the amount of $ 13,813,615.81 .
469. Because the Defendant Florentino Gregorio acted intentionally with malice aforethought,
Defendant named on this count $ 1,711,055.67.
470. Because the Defendant Cristina R. Gregorio acted intentionally with malice aforethought,
Defendant named on this count $ 1,711,055.67.
471. Because the Defendant District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Procurement
Department acted intentionally with malice aforethought, Plaintiff prays for all or part of
154
Eleventh Count
478
total amount of damages to be paid by all or part by the Defendant named on this count in
the amount of $ 1,520,968.00.
Department Board of Directors acted intentionally with malice aforethought, Plaintiff prays
for all or part of total amount of damages to be paid by all or part by the Defendant named
on this count in the amount of $ 1,520,968.00.
Department Retail Services Committee acted intentionally with malice aforethought,
474. Because the Defendant Government of the District of Columbia, Department of
Transportation Office of Contracting and Procurement acted intentionally with malice
475. Because the Defendant David P. Gragan, Chief Procurement Officer of the Government of
the District of Columbia, Department of Transportation Office of Contracting and
Procurement acted intentionally with malice aforethought, Plaintiff prays for all or part of
the amount of $ 4,530,312.07.
476. Because the Defendant Jerry M. Carter, Contracting Officer of the Government of the
District of Columbia, Department of Transportation Office of Contracting and Procurement
155
Eleventh Count
479
acted intentionally with malice aforethought, Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of
damages to be paid by all or part by the Defendant named on this count in the amount of $
4,530,312.07.
477. Because the Defendant District of Columbia, Committee on Public Works and
Transportation acted intentionally with malice aforethought, Plaintiff prays for all or part of
the amount of $ 4,530,312.07.
478. Because the Defendant Steven Hernndez acted intentionally with malice aforethought,
479. Because the Defendant Ted G. Loza acted intentionally with malice aforethought, Plaintiff
prays for all or part of total amount of damages to be paid by all or part by the Defendant
named on this count in the amount of $ 4,530,312.07.
480. Because the Defendant Steven Hernndez acted intentionally with malice aforethought,
481. Because Defendant Department of Small and Local Business Development with employees
or appointed Directors aided and abetted Defendant companies, Fort Myer Construction
Corporation, Anchor Construction Corporation, and Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc in granting,
endorsing and registering named Defendant s with affirmative action points to compete at a
156
Eleventh Count
480
reduced factor as an economically challenged company, which is fraud. Plaintiff seeks the
amount of $ 9,927,366.41.
482. Because all of the Defendants acted intentionally and wherein each was an active
participant in a part of the entire scheme and with malice aforethought, Plaintiff prays for all
or part of total amount of damages to be assessed jointly and severally against each
defendant named in this action in the amount of $ 96,198,580.68 as actual damage suffered
by Plaintiff herein.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
483. In the event the court or a jury finds the actions described above of such a blatant and
outrageous nature to make punitive damages appropriate in such amount as will deter others
in attempting to violated clear intent of federal and state law, then, in lieu of the statutory
damages allowed by law under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1, et seq.; then plaintiff prays that the Court
adopt the highest amount that is just and proper, and shall compensate the plaintiff for its
damages, and also deter the repetition of these actins for all time;
484. Plaintiff prays for punitive damages against the corporate defendants and their misguided
officers and employees as listed below, in such sum as will serve to discourage and deter
each person, (Defendant Jose Rodrigues, Defendant Francisco Rodrigues Neto, Defendant
Lewis Shrensky, Defendant Cristina M. Gregorio, and Defendant Florentino Gregorio); and
corporate business (Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor
Construction Corporation, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc Defendant Civil
157
Eleventh Count
481
Construction L.L.C., and Defendant District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
Procurement Deparment from a repetition of this activity in such sum as is just and
equitable, of no less than $ 250, 000, 000.00.
485. The foregoing referenced allegations cover each of the five elements for common law fraud
in DC. Therefore, plaintiff alleges that the burden of proof on this count have been met by
facts patent in the attachments to this complaint with respect to each of the four corporate
contractor defendants and the surety company.
158
Eleventh Count
482
TWELFTH COUNT: OVERSIGHT FAILURE, GROSS NEGLIGENCE

AND FRAUD OF GOVERNANCE BOARDS, CORPORATE BOARDS
AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT
Defendants:
Board of Directors
Jose Rodrigues
Lewis Shrensky
2237 33rd St. N.E.
Jose Rodrigues
Florentino Gregorio
Board of Directors
Board of Directors
Lewis Shrensky
Jose Rodriguez
Cheverly, MD, 20781
Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc..
Board of Directors
Francisco R. Neto
159
Twelfth Count
483
District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General

Peter J. Nickles, Attorney General
District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General
(aka DC Water)
2nd Floor
Board of Directors
2nd Floor
Jim Graham, Chairperson (D.C Council Member Ward 1)
Steven Hernndez (Legislative & Budget Director),
1350 Penn. Ave. NW, Suite 116
Executive Office of the Mayor
Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 316,
Washington, D.C. 20004.
486. The time in question was from November 1, 2008 through December 10, 2009.
160
Twelfth Count
484
488. Defendant District of Columbia:

accountability.
161
Twelfth Count
485

i.
Oversight: the responsibility of supervising something. Source Encarta

Dictionary
ii.
Gross Negligence: carelessness in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of

others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's
rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being
intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's
property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would
of his/her own property. If gross negligence is found by the trier of fact (judge or
jury), it can result in the award of punitive damages on top of general and special
damages.
Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gross+negligence
iii.
Fraud - A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful

gain
Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/fraud.
iv. Governance Board Governance [Government]

(1)
(2)
Governance [Government] the act or process of governing;

specifically : authoritative direction or control
Source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010. Merriam-Webster
Online. 29 September 2010 http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/government
Board A group of persons having managerial, supervisory, or
advisory powers <board of directors>. Source: Black's Law Dictionary
(8th ed. 2004), board
162
Twelfth Count
486
v. District of Columbia Government: a Federal District distinct in the United States

that house the Government of the United States. It is governed by a mayor and city
council
vi. Errors of Omission Omission-Leaving out Source Microsoft English Thesaurus
491. Defendants named, Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation (See Exhibit C.2.3),
Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation (See Exhibit C.3.8 ), Defendant Civil
Construction L.L.C (See Exhibit C.4.10 ), Capitol Paving of DC, Inc. (See Exhibit C.5.3 ),
Mayor of the District of Columbia, District of Columbia (See Exhibit F.8.115), Water and
Sewer Authority, Board of Directors (See Exhibits F.1.1, F.1.2, and F.1.3), and the District
of Columbia, Committee on Public Works and Transportation (See Exhibit F.4.1) (CPWT),
all Defendants named failed to prevent fraud, collusion, contract steering and bid rigging
which violated Plaintiffs ability to bid and compete without discrimination, for IFB
solicitation DCKA-2009-B-0025 Pavement Restoration and DCKA-2009-B-0193 Safe
school routes, at D.C. Department of Transportation, and District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority IFB solicitations # 080020 Replacement of Small Diameter Priority Water
Mains for 2008 Construction, IFB # 090080 Sewer Liner Replacement, IFB # 090020 Fire
Hydrant Replacement Defendants named chaired or is the Executive of Governance Board
which awarded to Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor
Construction Corporation, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc., and Defendant Civil
Construction L.L.C. all who participated and were awarded contracts through DCWASA
governance boards, and CPWT.
163
Twelfth Count
487
492. Defendants named in this count overlooked, blessed and condoned collusion activity of
named Defendants, Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor
Construction Corporation, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc., Defendant Civil
Construction L.L.C. and others in question (See Exhibits M.5.4 and M.5.7)..
493. Plaintiff encountered rejection by contract officers of DCWASA and DCDOT before
governance board of DCWASA and CPWT, knowing Defendant Fort Myer Construction
D.C., Inc., and Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. were affiliated familiar companies to
the governance board, which allowed fraudulent conduct in bid participation, administered
at DCWASA 5000 Overlook Avenue SW, Washington, D.C (See Exhibits G.1.12 and
G.1.14) facility for voting and final approval and acceptance of bid offers.
494. Defendant DCCPWT allowed fraudulent contract bid participation, to be administered by
Contracting Officers, at the facilities of DCDOT located at 2000 14th St. NW, 3rd Floor Bid
room, and 6th Floor Office of Contracting and Procurement., Washington, DC 20009.
495. Defendant D.C. Committee on Public works and Transportation and Defendant Jim
Graham, Chairperson and Council Member Ward 1, voted for approval of contract at 1350
Penn Ave. NW. Washington, D.C., the committees office.
496. Defendant The Executive of the Mayor of Washington, D.C. and Defendant Adrian M
Fenty, 1350 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 316, ignored contract regulations, vital to the
transparency for fair and accountable government procurement regulations, according to the
164
Twelfth Count
488
government of the District of Columbia Standard Contract Provisions, Article 18, section B
(See Exhibit E.2.9).
497. Defendant District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General and Defendant Peter
Nickles, as the Attorney General of the District of Columbia (See Exhibit F.9.1), actions of
gross negligence, oversight failure and allowing all Defendant companies listed to violate
and criminally undermine United States Anti Trust laws receivng United States Government
taxpayer funds and some from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
funded projects (See Exhibit F.8116) endorsed by the Government of the United States of
America to spur improvements of infrastructure development business opportunities for all
companies and individuals whom practice fair business ethics. Defendant actions obstructed
justice and economic growth.
498. Defendant DCWASA Procurement Department violated DCWASA Procurement
Regulations (See Exhibit E.1.3), 5321 (See Exhibit E.1.17) which eliminated Plaintiffs IFB
award.
165
Twelfth Count
489
499. IFB # 080020 Replacement of Small Diameter Priority Water Mains for 2008 Construction.
Bid Opening Date: August 20, 2008 (See Exhibit D.9.1)
Bid Amount
Company
$12,263,000.00
Sagres Construction
$18,780,139.00
Flippo Construction
$13,012,300.00
$11,154,500.00
CNA, Inc.
$11,997,930.00
$23,735,830.00
Corinthian Contractors
$12,850,422.99
$13,277,000.00
500. DCWASA IFB # 090080 Sewer Liner Replacement.

501. Bid Opening Date (See Exhibit D.9.2): March 25, 2009, DCWASA IFB # 090080.
502. DCWASA failed to respond to CNAs bid protest (See ExhibitsK.2.1 and K.2.2), DCWASA
Procurement Department violated DCWASA Procurement Regulations 5323, 5323.1 and
5324.2 (See Exhibit E.1.17 ).
503. List of Bids in Order Submitted
I
ii
iii
iv
v.
Company
Flippo Construction Company Inc.
Corinthian Construction Corporation
166
Twelfth Count
$
$
$
$
$
Bid Amount
7,484,160.00
7,784,704.00
6,605,360.00
7,974,540.00
6,424,140.00
490
vi Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.

vii CNA
* corrected protest bid.
504.
$ 7,675 200.00
($ 5,040,000.00)*
DCWASA IFB # 090020 BOD 4/1/09, Fire Hydrant Replacement, (See Exhibit D.9.3)
DCWASA allowed several of the bidders listed below to violate the Collusion agreement
Ii
Company
Fort Myer Construction
Corporation
Civil Construction, L.L. C.
Iii
Iv
Flippo Construction
Company, Inc.
Corinthian Contractors, Inc.
V
Vi
Viii
Sagres Construction
Corporation
Anchor Construction
Corporation
Nastos Construction
Ix
CNA
x.
ODonnell Construction
Company
Vii
505.
Bid Amount
$
3,126,150.00
$
3,251,880.00
$
3,323,760.00
$
4,199,370.00
$
3,328,400.00
$
3,376,550.00
$
3,301,775.00
$
2,703,160.00
$
2,817,600.00
$
3,108,000.00
DOT DCKA-2009-B-0025 BOD 3-23-09 (See Exhibit D.10.3)
167
Twelfth Count
491
506.
The D.C. Department of Transportation allowed companies to violate the Non-Collusion
Agreement. (See Exhibit D.10.3)
.
i.
ii
v.
507.
Company
Corporation
CNA
Senate Asphalt
Bid Amount
$
$
$
$
68,568,650.40
78,882,475.00
54,651,150.00
88,911,499.55
DOT DCKA-2009-B-0193 BOF 9-25-09 Safe School Routes
508. The D.C. Department of Transportation allowed companies to violate the Non-Collusion
Agreement.
.
i.
ii
v.
v.
vi
vii
viii
x
Company
Corporation
CNA
Omni Excavators
Prince Construction Company Inc.
A&M Concrete Construction
Potomac Construction Co.
* corrected protest bid.
Bid Amount
$ 2,344,870.00
2,341770.00
2,376,095.00*
2,617,405.00
2,161473.00
2,415,255.00
2,440,235.00
2,682,519.35*
2,847,280.00
509.
Damage Requested
Basis
$11,997,930.00
$13,012,300.00
$13,277,000.00
Damages Requested $51,137,652.99
Sum of four company collusion
violations
168
Twelfth Count
492

i. Fort Myer Construction ,Corporation. $ 7,484,160.00
$ 7,784,704.00
$ 7,974,540.00
$ 7,675,200.00
Damages Requested $ 30,918,604.00
Sum of four company collusion

$3,301,775.00
$3,251,880.00
iv Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.
$3,323,760.00
Sum of four company
collusion
violations
$68,568,650.40
$78,882,475.00
(Contract Award amount
to Defendant)
i.
Fort Myer Const. Corp.
ii. Capitol Paving of D.C
iv. Anchor Construction Corp.
Damages Requested
$2,338,405.00
$2,341,770.00
$2,415,255.00
$2,161,446.00
$9,256,876.00

510. For DCWASA Board of Directors:

i. DCWASA IFB # 080020 Damages Requested $51,137,652.99
Damages Requested
$30,918,604.00
iii DCWASA IFB # 090020
Damages Requested
$13,003,565.00
$ 95,059,821.99
169
Twelfth Count
493
511. For D.C. Committee on Public Works and Transportation

i. DOT DCKA-2009-B-0025
Damages Requested $ 68,568,650.40
512. For the Executive Office of the Mayor

i. DCDOT DCKA-2009-B-0025 Damages Requested $ 54,552,805.00 Plaintiffs IFB bid.
513. For Defendant Office of the Attorney General (OAG), 8% of profit on all IFB solicitations
Plaintiff bid on under the OAG oversight in District of Columbia
District of Columbia Department of Transportation
i. DCDOT DCKA-2009-B-0025 $ 54,552,805.00 Plaintiffs IFB bid.
ii. DCDOT DCKA 2009-B-0193 $ 2,376,095.90 Plaintiffs IFB bid
CNA Bid
i. DCKA-2009-B-0025
54, 252,805.00 (lowest bidder)
ii. CKA-2009- B-0193

$2,376,095.90 (4th lowest corrected bidder) exposed to
collusion
Total $56,628,900.90
8% Profit $ 4,530,312.07
514. For Defendant Peter Nickles Office of the Attorney General (OAG), 8% of profit on all IFB
solicitations Plaintiff bid on under the OAG oversight in District of Columbia
District of Columbia Department of Transportation
i.
DCDOT DCKA-2009-B-0025 Damages Requested $ 54,552,805.00 Plaintiffs

IFB bid. (lowest bidder)
ii.
DCDOT DCKA 2009-B-0193 Damages Requested $ 2,376,095.90 Plaintiffs

IFB bid (4th lowest corrected bidder) exposed to collusion
Total
$ 56,628,900.90 8% Profit $ 4,530,312.07

170
Twelfth Count
494
Conclusion
515. Defendants listed in this count all have the authority that would prevent entities such as
corporations or local municipal Government department(s) to steer them away from illegal
and unfair business or local government ethics regulations which played a significant role in
the exposure of Defendants illegal activity injuring Plaintiff CNA Inc. by oversight , gross
negligence and fraud.
516. Plaintiffs injury can be repaired by means of financial restitution from all
Defendants listed in this count coupled with the approariate injunctive relief as described
aabove

Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation Board of Directors: Francisco Rodrigues
Neto, Jose Rodrigues and Defendant Lewis Shrensky in the amount of $ 94,367,788.00
Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation Board of Directors, Francisco Rodrigues Neto,
Defendant Jose Rodrigues Defendant Florentino Gregorio and Defendant Cristina R.
Gregorio in the amount of $ 25,245,855.00
Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. Board of Directors, Defendant Lewis Shrensky and
Defendant Jose Rodrigues
in the amount of $ 26,653,975.00

171
Twelfth Count
495
Defendant Board of Directors, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc: Francisco Rodrigues
Neto in the amount of $ 105,500,205.00
Defendant DCWASA Board of Directors, in the amount of $ 95,059,821.00
Defendant D.C. Committee on Public Works and Transportation, Defendant Jim Graham,
Chairperson Council Member Ward 1, and Defendant Steven Hernandez Legislative &
Budget Director in the amount of $ 68,568,650.00
Defendant Executive Office of the Mayor and Defendant Mayor Adrian M. Fenty of the
District of Columbia, in the amount of $ 54,552,805.00.
Defendant Office of the Attorney General in the amount of $ 4,530,312.00
Defendant Peter Nickles, Attorney General of Washington, D.C in the amount of
$4,530,312.07
526. Plaintiff seeks and prays the court damages for this count in pursuant of
DC Code 2-402, or worthy laws of the Court that do apply in the amount of
$ 479,009,724.92.
.
172
Twelfth Count
496
THIRTEENTH COUNT: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH

BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS; PLAINTIFFS DEBTORS
Defendants:
2237 33rd St. N.E.
Jose Rodrigues
(aka DC Water)
2nd Floor

Procurement Department;
5000 Overlook Ave. S.W. 2nd Floor

2000 14th St. N.W. 6th Floor
Paul T. Bruflat, Senior Vice President
173
Thirteenth Count
497
527. During the time in question, August 20, 20008 through September 25, 2009
529. Defendant District of Columbia:
did was violate a myriad of duties to control the actions of its own agents, officials and boards.
It thereby became a part of the conspiracy which damaged the plaintiff and the public interest.
DC in fact enabled the conspiracy in violation of 15 U.S.C. sec 1 et seq. to become a reality by
gross negligence and no oversight accountability.
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, followed neither laws. What it did was violate
a myriad of duties to control the actions of its own agents, officials and boards. It thereby
became a part of the conspiracy which damaged the plaintiff and the public interest. District of
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority in fact enabled the conspiracy in violation of 15 U.S.C.
sec 1 et seq. to become a reality by gross negligence and no oversight accountability.
1. Tortuous Interference A third party's intentional inducement of a contracting party
to break a contract, causing damage to the relationship between the contracting
parties. Source: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), tortious interference with
contractual relations
174
Thirteenth Count
498
2. Debtor One who owes an obligation to another, esp. an obligation to pay money.
Source: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), debtor.
532. In Pursuant of Clayton Antitrust Act (1914), Sec. 26, 16: Injunctive Relief for Private Parties:
Exception; Costs, Plaintiff states the following
533. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant companies are liable for tortious interference with business
relationships because CNAs corporate responsibility could not be fulfilled to Debtors. The
elements of tortious interference with business relationships are:
i. denying of financial earnings
ii.. removing status of Plaintiff to compete with open market solicitations
iii. interference of goodwill relations of prospective creditors or vendors
iv. interference of goodwill relations with current creditors, lien holders, investors and
lenders of Plaintiffs operation.
534.
Defendants named, Fort Myer Construction Corporation; Anchor Construction Corporation;
Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.; Civil Construction L.L.C.; , District of Columbia Water and Sewer
Authority, Procurement Department; Western Surety Company, Government of the District of
Columbia, Department of Transportation, Office of Contracting and Procurement were vital in
destroying the goodwill reputation of Plaintiff. Defendants gave Plaintiff a negative reputation
status when competing as low bidder for IFB contract solicitations. Defendants tactfully disabled
Plaintiffs ability to repay (creditors, investors, lenders and lien holders of Plaintiffs operations)
debtors.
535.
Plaintiff chose to compete for infrastructure projects of named Defendants, DCWASA,
Procurement Department and DCDOT, Office of Contracting and Procurement.

175
Thirteenth Count
499
536.
Plaintiffs objective was to win IFB solicitations to maintain operational functions of CNA
and for CNA to become financially able to repay all liabilities (See Exhibits N.1.6 and N.1.7).
537.
Defendants actions jointly and separately destroyed good will intentions of Plaintiff in
fulfilling agreements to its debtor(s) (See Exhibits N.1.6 and N.1.7).

538.
Plaintiff in place value of estimated liabilities is $2,029,352.00.
539.
Defendant(s) named ability to destroy Plaintiffs goodwill intentions to compete for earnings
to build a company that has not violated any collusion agreements to win IFB solicitations.
540.
Plaintiff has not violated or criminally undermined Sherman Antitrust Act or the Clayton
Antitrust Act (1914) to mirror Defendants(s) named (Fort Myer Construction Corporation,
Anchor Construction Corporation, Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc, Civil Construction L.L.C. ),
unfair and dishonest business actions.
541.
Defendants named, Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Anchor Construction Corporation,
Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc, Civil Construction L.L.C.; District of Columbia Water and Sewer
Authority, Procurement Department; Government of the District of Columbia, and Department of
Transportation, Office of Contracting and Procurement, actions against Plaintiff can be defined
as tortious interference and not limited to malicious collusion behavior, fraud, conspiracy, and
deceitful intentions to stir hostility between business relationships, such as
i.
disgruntled financial investors expressing verbal or writing bad reputation reports on

Plaintiffs operations.
ii. lien holders movements to aggressively seek relief by courts or etc. (See Exhibit N.1.8).
iii. Plaintiff defaulting on operational contracts (real estate leases, credit accounts
revolving, contract financial agreements).
iv. Economic blocking of Plaintiffs ability to repay all debtors.
176
Thirteenth Count
500
Fair Business Ethics with Defendant(s) as a Debtor
542.
Plaintiff Cheeks of North America demonstrated goodwill fair business ethics when
contracting Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation, with Standard Infrastructure, a trade
name of CNA Inc. Plaintiffs Executive Director John C. Cheeks did not discover at the time of
the project that Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation was an entity which monopolized,
and or controlled all infrastructure work in the District of Columbia.
543.
Plaintiff hired Defendant to complete infrastructure improvement project contracted by a
private company to finish sidewalks, (granite), curbs and gutters (masonry). Plaintiff paid
Defendant firm a total of $8,680.00 (eight thousand six hundred dollars). Defendant received 1st
progress payment about $5,000.00 and a partial final progress payment to Defendant Fort Myer
Construction Corporation on July 7, 2009 (See Exhibit N.1.8) after Defendant Fort Myer
Construction Corporation applied tactics or actions such as:
i.
Aggressively requesting relief thru legal actions
ii.
Expressing verbal or writing negative business reputation reports to

prospective customers of Defendant District of Columbia Water and Sewer
Authority or District of Columbia Department of Transportation, Office of
Contracting and Procurement to prevent Plaintiff from economic gain.
544.
Plaintiff Cheeks of North America was under economic and financial distress along with
President, Director(s), Executive management, staff, personnel and subcontractors. CNA Inc.
through an Executive decision paid Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation a partial final
payment for an infrastructure project located at R and 5th St. NW, Washington, D.C which was
a non-government project. Plaintiff Cheeks of North America owes Defendant Fort Myer
Construction Corporation $56.00 (See Exhibit N) final progress payment. Plaintiff Cheeks of
177
Thirteenth Count
501
North America was illegally revoked from several IFB solicitations with Defendant District of
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority and District of Columbia Department of Transportation,
such as
i. DCWASA
IFB # 080020
ii. DCWASA
IFB # 090080
CNA bid
iii. DCWASA
FB # 090020
CNA bid $2,817,600.00 (2nd lowest bidder)
CNA bid $54, 252,805.00 (lowest corrected bidder)
Total Awarded Contracts
$ 73,264,905.00
545. CNA Inc.s economic and financial loss during the time frame of August 20, 2008 through July
7, 2009 was the amount of $73,264,905.00, Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation
gained financially from Plaintiff Cheeks of North America fair business ethic principles
although CNA Inc. was injured severely by Defendant(s) actions or tactics in multiple ways.
546. Parties of damages requested are as:
i.
Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation: affiliate to other Defendant(s) Fort Myer

Construction Corporation through family ties, interlocking directors and financial
support
ii.
Defendant Paul T. Bruflat, Senior Vice President, Western Surety Company/CNA

Surety Insurance group, which gave bid bond to Defendants Fort Myer Construction
Corporation, Anchor Construction Corporation and Civil Construction L.L.C..
iii.
Defendant Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority

Procurement Department, a non-government agency allowed other Defendant(s) to
violated non-collusion affidavit, to bid on IFB Solicitations 080020, 090030 and
090020 federally funded projects.
178
Thirteenth Count
502
iv.
Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation primary Defendant linked to many

other Defendant affiliated infrastructure companies in the District of Columbia
v.
Defendant District of Columbia Department of Transportation, Office of Contracting

and Procurement, a District of Columbia Government agency allowed other
Defendant(s) to violated non-collusion affidavit, to bid on IFB Solicitations DCKA2009-B-0025, and DCKA-2009-B-0193 federally funded projects.
547. Damages for tortious interference of Plaintiffs business relationships

548. (Plaintiffs debt amount $2,029,352.00 times each IFB contract loss through Defendants named)
A. DCWASA IFB # 080020 Replacement of small Diameter Priority Water Mains for
2008. (Debt Amount 2,029,352.00/3)
Damages Requested
i. Anchor Construction Corporation,
$676,450.67
ii. Western Surety Company
$676,450.67
iii. DCWASA, Procurement Department
$676,450.67
B. DCWASA IFB # 090020 Fire Hydrant Replacement

(Debt Amount $ 2,029,352.00/3)
i. DCWASA, Procurement Department
C. DCWASA IFB # 090080 Sewer Liner Replacement

(Debt Amount $ 2,029,352.00)
i. DCWASA, Procurement Department
$2,029,352.00
$2,029,352.00
D. DCKA-2009-B-0025 Pavement Restoration City-Wide

(Debt Amount $ 2,029,352.00/2)
i. Fort Myer Construction Corporation
(Awarded Contract)
$ 1,014,676.00
ii. DCDOT, Office of Contracting and Procurement $ 1,014,676.00

179
Thirteenth Count
503
E. DCKA-2009-B-0193 Safe School Routes

(1/2 Debt Amount $ 1,014,676.00/3)
(Awarded Contract)
ii. Western Surety Company
$ 338,225.33
$ 338,225.33
iii. District of Columbia Department of Transportation $ 338,225.33

180
Thirteenth Count
504
2 Month
Sales
ii. Dec-
i. Aug
1 Month
Sales
10
Month
DPW
DCWASA
DPW
Customer
Est. $ 148,000.00
Estimated Earnings
Equipment
Supplier
Category
Est. 27,980.20
Est. 250,000.00
Service/Indust
rial
Infrastructure
/Utilities
$ 277,980.20 Contract Amount

$ 16,678.80 Federal and DC taxes
$ 261,301.20 Gross receipts less taxes
$20,904.00 Profit at 8%
$2,027,222.00 Current Debt Amount
$ 10,904.10 Partial Payment (Profit)
$ 2,016,318.00 Debt Amount after applying profit
$ 10,000.00 Operating Capital (Year)
5 year
2 Year
2008
$ 185,000.00 Contract Amount

$10,637.50 Federal and DC taxes
$174,362.50 Gross receipts less taxes
$ 4,130.00 Profit
$2,029,352.00 Current Debt Amount
2,130.00 Partial Payment (Profit)
$2,027,222.00 Debt Amount after applying profit
2,000,00 Operating Capital ( Year)
4 months
Term
181
Thirteenth Count
i. $11,154,500.00
ii $3,639,901.00
$14,794,401.00 Total Sales
DCWASA 080020 Replacement of

Small Diameter Priority Water Mains
for 2008 Construction
DPW DCKT-2009-B-0003
Front End Loader
2007/ Year IFB Description (Total

Amount
549. Table 2.CNA Inc. Contract, Sales and Earnings Statement 2007-2013
505
4 Month
New Sales
2 Month
Exist Sales
Dec
iv. Sept
Aug
iii. May
ii. Apr
i. Mar
DCWASA
$5,040,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6,952,250.00
399,754.38
6,552,495.63
524,199.65
2,016,318.00
419,359.72
1,596,958.28
104,839.93
4 Year
2 Year
1 Year
1 Year
4 Year
2 Year
182
Thirteenth Count
ii.
$54,651,150.00
iii.
$2,817,600.00
iv.
$2,376,095.00
v.
$64,884,845.0
0
i.
DCWASA 090080
DCDOT DCKA-2009-B-0025
DCWASA 090020 Fire Hydrant
Replacement
DCWASA DCKA 0193 Safe School
Routes
2009
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
Service/Indust
rial
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Contracts Amount
Federal and DC taxes
Gross receipts less taxes
Profit at 8%
Current Debt Amount
Partial Payment (Profit)
Debt Amount after applying profit
Operation Capital (Year)
Est. $700,000.00
Est.
Est. $ 5,327,250.00
Est. $125,000.00
Est.
Est. $ 200,000.00
506
Dec-09
Aug-09
Sept-09
May
Apr
Mar
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2,320,000.00
Est. $ 727,980.20
Est. $ 5,577,250.00
Est. $ 938,047.95
Est. $ 2,692,600.00
Est. 13,163,201.25
Est.
Service/Indust
rial
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
25,399,079.40 Contracts Amount

1,523,944.76 Federal and DC taxes
23,875,134,64 Gross receipts less taxes
1,910,010.77 Profit at 8%
1,596,958.28 Current Debt Amount
1,596,958.28 Final Payment Applied to Debt
0.00 Debt
313,052.50 Operating Capital (year)
3 Year
Final Year
1 Year
Final Year
3 Year
1 Year
183
Thirteenth Count
DCWASA 090080
DCWASA 090020 Fire Hydrant
Replacement
DCWASA DCKA 2009-B -0193 Safe
School Routes
2010
507
Dec
Sept
Apr
Mar
727,980.20
Est. $ 1,188,047.95
Est. $13,563,201.25
Est. $ 2,520,000.00
Service/Indust
rial
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
$ 17,999,229.40 Contracts Amount

$ 1,034,955.69 Federal and DC taxes
$ 16,964,273.71 Gross receipts less taxes
$ 1,357,141.90 Profit at 8%
.00 Current Debt Amount
$
313,052.50 Operating Capital, carry forward
0.00 Debt
$ 1,670,194.40 Total Operating Capital (Year)
2 Year
1 Year
2 Year
Final Year
184
Thirteenth Count
DCDOT DCKA))(_B-0025
DCWASA DCKA 2009-B -0193 Safe
School Routes
DCWASA 090080
2011
508
Dec
Apr
727,980.20
Service/Indust
rial
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
727,980.20
Service/Indust
rial
Est. $ 13,563,201.25 Infrastructure

$
821,742.93 Federal and DC taxes
$ 1,077,555.08 Profit at 8%
$ 2,937,757.48 Operating Capital Carry Forward
0.00 Debt
$ 4,01,312.56 Total Operating Capital
Final Year
Final Year
2013
185
Thirteenth Count
Est. $
13,563,201.25
Est. $ 2,520,000.00

$
966,642.93 Federal and DC taxes
$
1,267,563.08 Profit at 8%
$
1,670,194.40 Operating Capital carry forward
0.00 Debt
$ 2,937,757.48 Total Operating Capital
1 Year
Apr
1 Year
DCDOT DCKA))(_B-0025
Dec-09
2 Year
Mar
2012
DCWASA 090080
509
550. Table 3
CNA Inc. 12 Year Projected Future Infrastructure Sales and Earnings 2014-2025
Sales 5% Annual
Increase
$ 4,800,000.00
$ 9,000,000.00
Profit at 8%
$
384,000.00
$
720,000.00
$ 3,000,000.00
$ 8,000,000.00
$ 24,800,000.00
$
$
$
240,000.00
640,000.00
1,984,000.00
$ 5,280,000.00
$ 9,900,000.00
$
$
422,400.00
792,000.00
$ 3,300,000.00
$ 8,800,000.00
$ 27,280,000.00
$
$
$
264,000.00
704,000.00
2,182,400.00
$ 5,808,000.00
$ 10,890,000.00
$
$
464,640.00
871,200.00
$ 3,630,000.00
$ 9,680,000.00
$ 30,008,000.00
$
$
$
290,400.00
774,400.00
2,400,640.00
$ 6,388,800.00
$ 11,979,000.00
$
$
511,104.00
958,320.00
$ 3,993,000.00
$ 10,648,000.00
$ 33,008,800.00
$
$
$
319,440.00
851,840.00
2,640,704.00
$ 7,027,680.00
$ 13,176,900.00
$
$
562,214.40
1,054,152.00
$ 4,392,300.00
$ 11,712,800.00
$ 36,309,680.00
$
$
$
351,384.00
937,024.00
2,904,774.40
$ 7,730,448.00
$ 14,494,590.00
$
$
618,435.84
1,159,567.20
$ 4,831,530.00
$ 12,884,080.00
$ 39,940,648.00
186
Thirteenth Count
$
$
$
386,522.40
1,030,726.40
3,195,251.84
Year 2014
Bridge Repair and Resurfacing- Non Highway
Roadway Improvements -Non Highway
Sidewalk and Above Ground Utilities (Street
Lights)
Underground Improvements-Water/Sewer
Year 2015
Lights)
Year 2016
Lights)
Year 2017
Lights)
Year 2018
Lights)
Year 2019
Lights)
510
Year 2020
Bridge Repair and Resurfacing- Non
Highway
Lights)
Year 2021
Highway
Lights)
Year 2022
Highway
Lights)
Year 2023
Highway
Lights)
Year 2024
Highway
Lights)
$ 8,503,492.80
$ 15,944,049.00
$
$
680,279.42
1,275,523.92
$ 5,314,683.00
$ 14,172,488.00
$ 43,934,712.80
$
$
$
425,174.64
1,133,799.04
3,514,777.02
$ 9,353,842.08
$ 17,538,453.90
$
$
748,307.37
1,403,076.31
$ 5,846,151.30
$ 15,589,736.80
$ 48,328,184.08
$
$
$
467,692.10
1,247,178.94
3,866,254.73
$ 10,289,226.29
$ 19,292,299.29
$
$
823,138.10
1,543,383.94
$ 6,430,766.43
$ 17,148,710.48
$ 53,161,002.49
$
$
$
514,461.31
1,371,896.84
4,252,880.20
$ 11,318,148.92
$ 21,221,529.22
$
$
905,451.91
1,697,722.34
$ 7,073,843.07
$ 18,863,581.53
$ 58,477,102.74
$
$
$
565,907.45
1,509,086.52
4,678,168.22
$ 12,449,963.81
$ 23,343,682.14
$
$
995,997.10
1,867,494.57
$ 7,781,227.38
$ 20,749,939.68
$ 64,324,813.01
$
$
$
622,498.19
1,659,995.17
5,145,985.04
187
Thirteenth Count
511
Year 2025
Highway
Lights)
Totals
$ 13,694,960.19
$ 25,678,050.35
$
$
1,095,596.82
2,054,244.03
$ 8,559,350.12
$ 22,824,933.65
$ 70,757,294.31
$
$
$
684,748.01
1,825,994.69
5,660,583.54
$530,330,237.43
42,426,418.99
188
Thirteenth Count
512
viii
vii
vi
iv
iii
ii
551.
Year
Contract
Amount
Federal
and DC
taxes
Gross
receipts
less taxes
Profit
Current
Debt
Amount
Partial
Payment
(Profit)
Debt
Balance
Amount
after
applying
profit
Operating
Capital
(Year)
$10,000.00
$2,016,318.00
$2,027,222.00
$2,000,00
$10,904.10
2,000,00
$2,027,222.00
$20,904.00
$ 4,130.00
$2,029,352.00
$261,301.20
$ 16,678.80
$ 277,980.20
2008
$174,362.50
$10,637.50
$ 185,000.00
2007
$ 313,052.50
0.00
$1,596,958.28
$1,596,958.28
$1,910,010.77
$23,875,134,64
$1,523,944.76
$25,399,079.40
2010
189
Thirteenth Count
$104,839.93
$1,596,958.28
$419,359.72
$2,016,318.00
$ 524,199.65
$6,552,495.63
$ 399,754.38
$6,952,250.00
2009
Table four Summary of Annual Financial Accounts
$1,670,194.40
0.00
$313,052.50
00.
$1,357,141.90
$16,964,273.71
$1,034,955.69
$17,999,229.40
2011
$ 2,937,757.48
00
00
00
$1,267,563.08
$15,844,538.52
$ 966,642.93
$16,811,181.45
2012
$ 4,01,312.56
00
00
00
$ 1,077,555.08
$13,469,438.52
$ 821,742.93
$14,291,181.45
2013
513
552. Plaintiffs injury by Defendants; Actions on this count cam be summarized by actual statement
of loss for contract sales and earnings. Injury of Sales and Earnings are projected from 112years.
553. Defendants actions through collusion and use of affirmative action set aside goal requirements
or possessing a DCLSDBE certificate or license (See Exhibit ) strengthened the tactics used to
injure Plaintiff from opportunities won through fair business ethics principles and the ability to
repay debt owed
Conclusion
554. Defendants listed in this count destroyed goodwill and interfered with Plaintiffs debt obligations
to repay persons or entities. Defendants illegal actions or deceptive practices, jointly or
separately through various forms of interference, injured Plaintiff CNA Inc. and the entity
President John C. Cheeks. Plaintiff encountered a negative wave of failure, mistrust and
aggressive e inquiries by some debtors. Plaintiffs debt as a whole was projected to be paid in
full by October or November 2010, through IFB contracts won from August 20, 2008, through
September 25, 2009.
555. Plaintiffs injuries by Defendantson in this count can be repaired, restored or cured by means of
financial restitution from all Defendants listed in this count coupled with the injunctive relief
requested.
190
Thirteenth Count
514
Plea for Damages

556. Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages to be paid by Defendant Western Surety
Company/CNA for the participation or endorsing fidelity surety bond to Defendant(s) for
securing IFB solicitations in the amount of $ 1,014,676.00
557. Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages to be paid by Defendant named
DCWASA Procurement Department, Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages to
be paid by all or part by each Defendant named on this count based on tortious interference of
business relationships in the amount of $4,735,154.67
558. Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages to be paid by Defendant named, Anchor
Construction Corporation ,on this count based on tortious interference of business relationships
in the amount $ 1,014,676.00.
559. Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages to be paid by Defendant named, Fort
Myer Construction Corporation, on this count based on tortious interference of business
relationships in the amount $ 1,014,676.00.
560. Plaintiff prays for all or part of total amount of damages to be paid by Defendant named
DCDOT, Office of Contracting and Procurement on this count based on tortious interference of
business relationships in the amount $1,352,901.33 .
561. Total damages on this count prayed for $ 9,132,084.00 .
191
Thirteenth Count
515
V. IMMEDIATE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE 65.
Count Defendant
2237 33rd St. N.E.
2413 Schuster Drive
Cheverly, MD, 20781
Francisco R. Neto

Board of Directors
2nd Floor
The Government of the District of Columbia
Through Each Procurement Office,
Located in Washington, D.C.
562.
Five (5) contracts as listed below have been awarded to the four (4) principal co-conspirator
corporations with the aid and assistance of Western.

i.
DCWASA IFB # 080020 Replacement of Small Diameter Priority Water 8

Construction
192
516
ii.
DCWASA IFB # 090080
iii.
DCWASA IFB # 090020
Fire Hydrant Replacement
iv.
v.
Safe School Routes
564. The Court is requested to find that the instant contracts are unlawful, and issue declaratory
judgments and mandamus actions to prevent reoccurrence of such gross abuses in the future.
565. These contracts represent continuing and irreparable harm by further unlawful acts creating a
situation of immediate and continuing irreparable harm to the public interests and the interests of
the United States in funding the District of Columbia Government..
566. Plaintiff CNA Inc. is being damaged by each day each of the misawarded contracts continue
The public is being similarly harmed.
567. Therefore the following injunctive relief is requested:
568. (1) The barring of participation in the 5 contracts of the 6 Defendant corporations listed above.
569. Relief is requested necessary to prevent continuing and irreparable harm to the plaintiff and to
the interests of the public.(2) Find that the five (5) principal defendants and DCWASA and the
District of Columbia Government are subject to this courts jurisdiction to award injunctive
relief under 15 U.S.C. 26 (injunctive relief for private parties). (3) Order such other actions
that will expedite the completion oft the contracts to minimize damages to the public and the
interests of the United States in funding the District of Columbia. (4) Order the District of
Columbia via a writ of Mandamus to conform all of its oversight functions to the requirements
of federal law, in all departments of that government, and with (5) similar writs issued to each
procurement officer to revise its procedures to prevent such violations of federal law in the
future.
193
517
570. A hearing on injunctive relief and for an award on interim costs and attorneys fees is requested
at the earliest convenience of the court. Preliminary injunctive relief is necessary to preclude
further harm which pertains not just to the five (5) contracts but also to the ability of the plaintiff
to participate in fair and equitable bidding in the future. Further, without injunctive relief, the
violations of federal statutes shall continue. This ongoing abuse cannot be tolerated by this
court or the taxpayers, which includes federally funded projects.
571. As soon as is convenient to the court, a prima-facie hearing on liability and the immediate and
irreparable harm alleged herein should be held. Plaintiff has no objection to a merger of the
liability issues for trial into the injunction hearing. Those initial trial issues are whether or not
patent violations of restraint of trade, bid-rigging, or violations of federal anti-monopoly statutes
have occurred (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and the certainty of continuing and irreparable harm to the
plaintiff and the public interest.
PRAYER FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

572. Injunctive relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure # 65 is requested to:
i.
Declare the five (5) subject contracts to be void.
ii.
Remove the six (6) principal defendants (Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Anchor
Construction Corporation, Civil Construction L.L.C., Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc/,
Western Surety Company, and Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and Sewer
Authority from any functional part of the five (5) contracts now in process and bar the
five (5) corporate co-conspirators and their owners and affiliates from further contracts
in the District of Columbia.
194
518
iii.
Issue a preliminary injunction or Writ of Mandamus against the six (s) principal
defendants requiring a restoration of all funds received under the instant contracts or
such other injunctive relief as will make CNA and the pubic whole for these five (5)
contracts.
iv.
Grant CNA a reasonable period of time (60 days) to resume the performance of these
contracts in accordance with District of Columbia and Federal Law.
v.
Enter all orders necessary to the effectuation of the interests of justice and the public
interest in holding the five subject contracts void ab initio.
vi.
A hearing on this count considered to be final on the determinative issues of violations

of federal statutes should be held as soon as convenient to the court.
vii.
The court should order such other injunctive relief as is equitable, just and proper
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 66 and 56.
viii.
Award interim costs and Attorneys fees to CNA and its counsel.
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF-FEDERAL CLAIMS UNDER TITLE 15 (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.
573. Plaintiff hereby prays that the Honorable Judge and the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia award the total sum of $ 360,000,000.00 (Three hundred sixty million
dollars) consisting of compensatory damages, actual damages and statutory damages or such
sums as the jury finds just and proper, and that in addition an award of cost and attorneys fees
be made in accordance with the provisions of 15 U.S.C. that triple damages be awarded for such
sums as are found to be a just and proper measure of damages.
195
519
574. And that further, immediate injunctive relief be awarded in order to prevent additional
immediate and irreparable harm to the public interest and to plaintiff herein. In said injunction
hearing the Court should enter a declaratory judgment that the violations of 15 U.S.C. 26 have
occurred, and there is no defense applicable to the unlawful acts available to these defendants.
Accordingly, the plaintiff prays that preliminary injunctive relief requested be granted.
196
520
VII. ALLOCATION OF DAMAGE RELIEF REQUESTED

575. Plaintiff Cheeks of North America, Inc. request damages against the Defendants, jointly and
severally on the federal claims as follows:: Fort Myer Construction Corporation; Civil
Construction L.L.C. ; Anchor Construction Corporation; Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc.;
Western Surety Company; District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority; District of
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, Board of Directors; District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority, Retail Services Committee; District of Columbia Water and Sewer
Authority, Procurement Department; Government of the District of Columbia, Department
of Transportation, Office of Contracting and Procurement; Government of the District of
Columbia, Department of Public Works, Office of Contracting and Procurement; District of
Columbia Council, Committee on Public Works and Transportation; Executive Office of the
Mayor, and Adrian M. Fenty Mayor of the District of Columbia. Defendant having 10,000
or more combined labor workforce (skilled or unskilled), management staff, manufacturing
capabilities, financially superior, surety financial support, governance board(s), agent or
officer surveillance capabilities (unwarranted), elected public officials, appointed
Directors(public or private) and affirmative action preference points (Local District of
Columbia small business) and executive oversight.
576. Defendant(s) violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1; the Clayton Antitrust Act(1914)
Title 15 12, 13, 14-19, 20, 21, 22-27, and discriminated at will jointly and separately
against Cheeks of North America Inc., which destroyed rights to compete and perform
197
521
infrastructure IFB contract solicitations funded by United States Government and District of
Columbia municipal dollars. .
577. Cheeks of North America, Inc. pleads and prays the court to find the Defendants jointly and
severally liable for the unlawful acts and damages claimed herein on all of the following
counts:
i.
First Count: Violation of Section 1 of The Sherman Anti-Trust Act; Affiliated

Companies Bidding Federally Funded Infrastructure Contracts
ii.
Second Count: Violation of Sherman Anti - Trust Act By A Surety Company;

Endorsement and Registrar Issuance of Surety Bid Bond Instrument(s) for Affiliated
Defendant Customers or Clients
iii.
Third Count: Bid-Rigging; Conspiracy of Restraint of Trade, Section 1 of The Sherman

Anti - Trust Act
iv.
Fourth Count: Price Fixing
v.
Fifth Count: Monopoly by Defendant Companies
vi.
Sixth Count: Coercive Monopoly; Owners, Directors, Officers of Companies, Elected

Public Officials and Appointed Employees by Public Officials
Seventh Count: : Contract Steering
vii.
viii.
Eighth Count: Violation of Non-Collusion Affidavit for District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority and District of Columbia, Department of Transportation of IFB
Solicitations
ix.
Ninth Count:. Violation of DC Code 28- 4502; Engaging in a Bid-Rigging Conspiracy

by Directors, Owners and Officers
x.
Tenth Count: Breached Procurement Regulations
xi.
Eleventh Count: Common Law Fraud
xii.
Twelfth Count: Oversight Failure, Gross Negligence and Fraud of Governance Boards,
Corporate Boards and the District of Columbia Government
198
522
xiii.
Thirteenth Count: Tortious Interference with Business Relationships; Plaintiffs

Debtors.
xiv.
Immediate Injunctive Relief Against the Six (6) Principal Defendants Herein, Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, with costs and attorneys fees as deemed
appropriate by the court in a sum at $1,250,000.00 estimate at this time.
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA LAW, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD AND COMMON LAW CLAIMS
578.
Wherefore Cheeks of North America, Inc. requests financial damages be assessed
against all Defendants listed following, jointly and severally, for statutory and common law
conspiracy and fraud, violations of District of Columbia statues, District of Columbia
common law and federal common law as follows.
A. Loss of earnings on 5 contracts awarded $6,051,280.07
i. DCWASA IFB # 080020 CNA bid
$11,154,500.00 8% Profit
$ 892,360.00
$5,040,000.00 8% Profit
$ 403,200.00
$2,817,600.00 8% Profit
$ 225,408.00
iv. DOT DCKA-2009-B-0025 CNA bid
$ 54, 252,805.00 8% Profit $ 4,340,224.40
vi. DCDOT DCKA-2009-B-0193 CNA bid $2,376,095.90 8% Profit $ 190,087.67

$6,051,280.07
B. Loss of future profits $42,426,418.99 (See page 132, Thirteenth Count) , and such other
relief that the Court or Jury may find just and equitable; and that further that the Court or
Jury award as punitive and exemplary damages in a sum sufficient to deter similar actions in
199
523
the future in the sum of $ 250,000,000.00 or such other sum as the Court or a Jury finds just
or equitable
579.
Plaintiff also pleads and prays for attorney (s) fees and court costs, all or in part to be
paid by Defendants for all counts listed or whatever the court deems worthy.
IX. SUMMARY OF DAMAGES: DEFENDANTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE

i.
Note to the Court:

The court has requested Plaintiff to include a listing of the individual liability of
each separate Defendant for all counts combined applicable to that Defendant.
The following Table attempts to comply with that request. However since each of
the individual Defendant s appears to be complicit in the overall conspiracy,
Plaintiff finds it difficult to separate each item of damages by each Defendant.
200
524
ii.
$ 48,427,323.48
Adrian M Fenty Total

Anchor Construction Corp
Capitol Paving of D.C
Carlo Enciso
Civil Construction L. L.C.
Committee on Public Works and Transportation/Jim
Graham Chairperson/Steven Hernandez
David P. Gragan
DCDOT-OCP
DCLSDBE
DCWASA-Board of Directors
DCWASA-PD
DCWASA-RSC
Executive Office of the Mayor
Florentino Gregorio
Fort Myer Construction ,Corp.
Jerry Johnson
Jerry Carter
Jim Graham
Jose Rodrigues
Lewis Shrensky Total
Office of the Attorney General
Peter Nickles
Paul T. Bruflat
Steven Hernndez
Ted Loza
Western Surety Company
Total
Punitive Damages Eleventh Count
201
123,326,295.32
$485,290,639.46
892,360.00
125,079,718.33
$73,098,962.47
$8,769,160.32
4,530,312.07
100,551,797.71
$19,854,729.58
99,296,804.28
46,406,306.96
4,236,982.29
48,427,323.48
10,480,215.99
$461,652,979.25
152,502,788.68
$1,520,968.00
4,530,312.07
4,530,312.07
66,400,876.78
57,631,716.45
4,530,312.07
4,530,312.07
3,884,948.40
4,530,312.07
4,530,312.07
92,915,164.70
2,062,360,246.43
$250,000,000.00
525
526
XI. REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JUDGE

583.
Plaintiff Cheeks of North America, Inc. requests a hearing for a preliminary injunction
into which the appropriate trial issues are consolidated followed by an expedited discovery
schedule and a trial by the Honorable Judge and the United States District Court for the
District of Colombia of this action. Plaintiff hereby waives his right to a trial by jury.
203
527
528
XII.
ATTACHMENT I
LETTER FROM DCDOT CONTRACT AWARDED TO FORT MYER

CONSTRUCTION CORP, DCKA-2009-C-0025
205
529
206
530
Case 1:14-cv-00914-RCL Document 103-1 Filed 09/28/15 Page 1 of 45
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA
John C. Cheeks
1007 Urell Place NE,
Washington DC 20017
Cheeks of North America, Inc. (CNA)
1110 6th, Street NW
Juanita Gallardo (Plaintiff or Applicant Intervenor)
4700 27th St. #201
Mt. Rainier, MD 20712
CIVIL NO. 1:14-cv-00914 RCL
Plaintiffs
V.
1237 33rd St. N.E.
2413 Schuster Drive
Cheverly, MD, 20781
CNA Financial and CNA Surety (Insurance Companies)
333 S. Wabash Ave., 41-South
Chicago, IL 60604
Francisco Rodriguez Neto
Jose Rodriguez (aka Rodrigues
2237 33rd St. N.E.
531

Dora Rodriquez
2400 Feather sound Dr. # 233
Clearwater, FL 33762
Florentino Gregorio
2254 25th Place. N.E
Lewis Shrensky
2237 33rd St. N.E
Aurora Rodriguez
2237 33rd St. N.E
Barbara Shrensky
2237 33rd St. N.E
Lauren Shrensky
2413 Schuster Drive
Cheverly, MD, 20781
Jason Shrensky
2413 Schuster Drive
Cheverly, MD, 20781
Christopher Kerns
2237 33rd St. N.E.
James Abely
1237 33rd St. N.E.
Defendants
532
Third Amended Complaint
533
I. NATURE OF THE CASE

1.
The case involves the Rodriguez Shrensky Family Rico Enterprise and the Insurance Carrier, CNA
Surety unlawfully colluding over the last 20 year in the District of Columbia, to monopolize
District of Columbia infrastructure contacts by whatever means necessary including attempted

murder, death threats, bribery, obstruction of justice, incarceration to silence a witness, election
tampering in the District of Columbia and other violations are noted in concisely in Exhibit K
and later in this complaint.
2.
Exhibit K is a summary of specificity and details Ordered by the Judge for Inclusion in an
Amended Complaint.
3.
Plaintiffs `John Cheeks, and CNA. Inc. efforts to fairly compete for infrastructure contracts
against the RICO Enterprise has led to a series of reprisals against the Plaintiffs, which in the
cause of the filing of this Complaint
4.
This is an original "state" action brought by several joint plaintiffs under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act (RICO)(18 U.S. C. 1961); also under the Sherman AntiTrust Act, for restraint of trade, violations of District of Columbia Code , Common Law
Criminal Code, and Civil Rights Actions under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981-1986, 1983 actions under
color of state law, and common law civil and criminal fraud actions by the individual plaintiffs
acting as private attorneys general against the racketeering enterprise in the absence of actions
by civil prosecutors who are alleged to be a part of the problem not the solution to all wrongs
herein alleged. The specific allegations of violations of both civil and criminal law are detailed
in Exhibit K Attached hereto.
5.
The RICO Enterprise's actions were, and are, on information and belief, facilitated by
participation of the plaintiff Construction Companies management, and financiers including its
534

insurance and bonding underwriters, CNA Surety (an affiliate of CNA Financial Corporation),
that de-facto and actual Management officials aided and abetted the criminal activities herein
described, including failure to report known criminal violations or fraudulent civil acts wherein
under the circumstances are alleged herein.
6.
Each Defendant, either by their failure to perform an affirmative duty under applicable federal
or state law, and/or by observing such acts and/or failing to report such unlawful acts as was
their affirmative duty, was effectively a participant in the violations herein alleged. Details of
violations are in attached exhibits with supporting documents that fulfilling criteria determining
and establishing a RICO Enterprise
7.
These documents support the violent acts to silence witnesses by threats, attempted murder,
stalking, malicious prosecution resulting in incarceration of a single parent mother, and
interference in witness's civil rights, by obstruction of justice.
8.
The violations of criminal law are patent on the face of each of these documents.
9.
All of the detailed documents attached hereto are genuine; accordingly the violations of law
alleged herein are self-authenticating. Plaintiff Cheeks has personally observed these
racketeering actions in operation since circa 2002. On information and belief, the acts
complained of herein continue unabated to this date.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. This complaint was initially brought in the District of Columbia Courts under jurisdiction which
was never challenged, but instead jurisdiction was necessarily admitted when the case was
removed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, from the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia with all Defendants and their Counsel either alleging that the
United States District Court had jurisdiction or waiving any opportunity to object to jurisdiction.
Therefore, the jurisdiction has been accepted by all parties and the District of Columbia.
535

11. This Court has jurisdiction to hear the merits of the Plaintiffs claims under RICO (18 U.S.C.
1961, 1981-1986 here 1988 action under color of State law, as alleged in Exhibit K, and
because this action arises under the Sherman Antitrust Act 15 U.S.C 1 et seq., and jurisdiction
over the related state law claims, which arise out of the same body of facts, is proper under 28
U.S.C. 1367 and to hear all violations of federal and state criminal code and common law
under principles of supplemental jurisdiction.
12. 15 U.S.C. 26 grants the Court the power to award injunctive relief with respect to private
defendants (as here). Federal claims (violations of 15 U.S.C.) grant jurisdiction to provide
redress over those federal violations under 28 U.S.C. 1331.
13. Both RICO and Sherman Acts provide for private individuals to act as private attorneys general
to redress claims. That principle is particularly appropriate herein because the legal authorities
in the District of Columbia have not only refused to act upon the violations of law patent upon
the face of relevant and material documents herein but also in public reporting of several related
criminal and civil actions in this Courts records (for example the previous criminal debarment
of Fort Myer, et al.
14. The amount of alleged controversy of ($ 150,000,000) for unlawful contract claims alone)far
exceeds the jurisdictional requirement for a lawsuit herein ($75,000 minimum). Venue is proper
in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1391, and 15 U.S.C 4. All references in this
Complaint to specific statutes, codes and regulations include any successors to those statutes
codes, and regulations. Some or all of the unlawful acts occurred in the District of Columbia.
Plaintiffs John Cheeks and Cheeks of North America are located in the District of Columbia.
15. Applicant Intervenor/Joinder/Plaintiff Juanita Q. Gallardo (Gallardo)(pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 19 and/or 20) is alleged to be a victim of the RICO Enterprises unlawful
acts under RICO, Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. U.S. 1983 in that her civil rights were violated by
false testimony and documents presented to the Grand Jury by the Enterprise.
536

16. Those actions whereby she was incarcerated were unlawful and fraudulent actions under color
of State law.
17. Gallardo avers a right to sue as a citizen, protected minority female and Hispanic, whose equal
protection of the laws and constitutional due process rights were violated by the RICO
enterprise and several of its members for joint preservation of the unlawful interests of the
Enterprise in obstruction of justice, and protecting individual members of the Enterprise in the
ongoing performance of unlawful including evasion of a federal protective order.
18.
The RICO Enterprise members include her former employer(s), Hawk Enterprises, Dora
Rodriguez, Christina R. Minton, who paid her salary while she worked for Hawk, Fort Myer
Construction Corp. and its owner(s) believed to include Jose Rodriguez, as a de-facto matter, its
General Counsel, and an Attorney James Abely.
III. STANDING TO SUE

19. Federal law violations herein damaging the Plaintiffs are alleged pursuant to Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act (RICO) (18 U.S. C. 1961, et seq.). A private civil action
may be maintained by each Plaintiff injured in his business or property pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1964 (c). Each Plaintiff herein has been a victim of one or more of the unlawful RICO
activities.
20. Other violations alleged herein allow redress, under Sherman Anti Trust Act 15 U.S.C.15, for
violations of restraint of trade, monopoly, bid rigging/bribery attempted murder, obstruction
of justice, stalking and fraud and others contained in 15 U.S.C. 1 through 16.
John Cheeks and CNA Corp.
21. John Cheeks, at all relevant times, was a contractor in the District of Columbia who was denied
profitable contracts, threatened with death, survived 3 murder attempts, theft and damage of
property, intimidation and car surveillance by the RICO Enterprise. His loss of contracts, and
emotional distress entitle his standing to sue.
537

Juanita Gallardo
22. Ms. Gallardo a former employee of the RICO, and as a potential witness against the RICO
Enterprise was denied her civil rights, as the RICO Enterprise obstructed justice by framing her
in a fraudulent trials, wrongfully accusing and presenting false evidence to assure that she
would be, and was incarcerated, and wrongfully was demanded to pay restitution of funds to the
RICO Enterprise. These acts were to prevent her from testing her knowledge of how the
Enterprise, colluded in Bid Rigging, Fraud and Criminal Acts,
23. His wrongful incarceration, loss of income, and emotional distress because of the RICO
Enterprise entitles her standing to sue.
III. THE PARTIES

Plaintiffs:
24. John C. Cheeks (Cheeks) is the principal owner of Cheeks of North America, Inc. (CNA).
Principal place of business in the District of Columbia.
25. Cheeks of North America Inc. is, and has been since2002, a District of Columbia (MinorityOwned African American) Corporation, engaged in contracting for infrastructure contracts, i.e.,
sidewalks, roads, and concrete construction in the District of Columbia. Principal place of
business in the District of Columbia.
Added Plaintiff or Witness
26. Mrs. Juanita Gallardo, resident of Maryland, originally described as an unidentified plaintiff and
dismissed from the case, is t the other allegedly injured party. During 2002-2005 she was
employed as a bookkeeper at Hawk Enterprises (Hawk), a now defunct company that was a
shell company of the RICO Enterprise.
27. Gallardo, a female of Hispanic origin, was employed by Jos Rodriguez's daughter, Dora
Rodriguez, officially as an employee of Hawk, but paid by another daughter, Cristina, from the
538

coffers of a predecessor of Civil Construction LLC. She also was tasked from time to time to
make deposits to the Hawk Enterprise payroll bank account.
28. Gallardos work duties included bookkeeping, purchasing, office management and clerical
assistance with paperwork involved in the RICO entities operations. She was also a part of the
central pool of accountants under the direction and control of Mrs. Trudy Quade, who was the
chief accountant for many of the entities of the RICO Enterprise. As such she was in a position
to observe many of the details of the group operations of the Enterprise and privy to much of the
personal information of it purported owners.
29. Mrs. Gallardo requests the aid and protection of the Court as she has already suffered the ire of
the Enterprise and fears for her life, even at this time. She is proceedings in the Circuit Court of
Prince Georges County to clear her name of the felony charges to which she was framed.
30. Her address is 4700 27th St. #201, Mt. Rainier, MD 20712. She is the mother and financial
supporter of four variously aged children and care-giver to a sick mother. Gallardo was injured
by activities designed to obstruct justice in order to cover- up the various illegal actions of the
RICO Enterprise and thereby continue the illegal activities described herein. These activities are
described under Obstruction of Justice. She alleges herein that she was at all times innocent of
any and all thefts charged, and has now obtained actual evidence of the falsity of the charges
against her.
31. Gallardo further alleges that her civil rights were intentionally violated by the collusive action
of the RICO enterprise, its counsel, and at least some of its principal owners, for the purpose of
protecting the RICO Enterprise from public exposure of its criminal activities. Specifically, she
was incarcerated by false allegations and false documents presented to the Grand Jury by RICO
Members, in order to prevent her testimony in the then ongoing cases in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.
539

32. Because of her longstanding desire to clear her name and to expose the abuse of judicial
processes, with the passage of time and the removal of this case to the jurisdiction of this Court,
Gallardo has reconsidered the risk factors influencing her fear of reprisal and hereby reasserts
her previous requests injunctive relief in the form of a protective order prohibiting any reprisal
against her or her family, by any further action by any person acting under color of state law, at
the earliest opportunity. She requests this protection pending the decision of this Court as to
whether or not to allow her return to the status of active plaintiff herein, and even if denied,
thereafter.
33. Accordingly, Juanita Gallardo is a necessary party to the Cheeks Litigation, and Cheeks is a
necessary party and/or witness to the Gallardo prospective civil rights Litigation, based on 42
U.S.C. 1983.
34. By motion filed contemporaneous herewith, the Plaintiffs and Gallardo request leave to join
Mrs. Gallardo back into the complaint as a necessary party.
Defendants:
35. Defendant Fort Myer is a Commonwealth of Virginia corporation. During the time in question,
it was engaged in infrastructure construction and registered to conduct business in the District of
Columbia as a foreign corporation with a place of business at 2237 33rd Street, N.E.,
36. Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation is a District of Columbia corporation with its
principal place of business at 2254 25th Place, N.E, Washington, D.C. During the time period in
question Anchor Construction Corporation (Anchor) was engaged in general horizontal
construction and contracting including, but not limited to, residential construction, commercial
construction and public works projects.
540

37. Defendant Civil Construction is a Maryland corporation registered to conduct business in the
District of Columbia as a foreign corporation with a place of business at 2413 Schuster Drive,
Cheverly, MD 20781. During this time in question, Civil Construction L.L.C. (Civil) was
engaged in the construction business.
38. Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc. (aka Capital Paving of D.C. Inc.) is a District of
Columbia corporation with its principal place of business at 2211 Channing Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20018. During the time period in question, Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc.,
(Capitol) was engaged in the general and specialty construction business.
39. Defendants CNA Financial Corp and CNA Surety Company "doing business as" CNA Surety
Company is one of the largest (if not the largest) insurance companies in the United States, with
over $9 Billion of retained earnings.
40. Jose Rodriguez, on information and belief, was the President and Owner of Fort Myer and was
on the Boards of Directors of Anchor Corporation; Fort Myer and Civil Construction LLC,
during the time in question.
41. Francisco Rodriguez Neto, was the Vice President of Fort Myer and was on the Board of
Directors of Anchor Corporation; was the President, Treasurer and a Board of Directors
member of Capitol Paving of DC, at the time in question.
42. Lewis Shrensky, was Treasurer, Secretary and member of the Board of Directors of Fort Myer
and Civil construction LLC, at the time in question. On information and belief Mr.Shrensky for
many years is and/or has been in a business partnership relationship with Jose Rodriguez. Both
are alleged to be management principals of the RICO Enterprise.
43. Cristina (Rodriguez) Gregorio (Minton) on information and belief was an Executive and Owner
of Anchor Construction Company, at the time in question. She is the daughter of Jose
Rodriguez. She also paid the salary of Gallardo while Gallardo was purportedly an employee of
Hawk Enterprises, one of the alleged shell companies of the Enterprise.
541

44. Florentino Gregorio, was the President of Anchor Corporation and the husband of Cristina
Rodriguez, at the time in question. Anchor is also one of the major components of the
Enterprise.
45. Dora (Rodriguez) Cooper (Dora) was an officer (formerly) of Hawk Enterprises, an employee
of Fort Myer Construction Company and on the Board of Directors of Civil Construction
Company, at the time in question. Dora is the daughter of Jose Rodriguez
Added Defendants
46. Christopher Kerns, was the Vice President and Counsel for Fort Myer during the times in
question.
47. Aurora Rodriguez, has been a member of the Board of Directors of Fort Myer since 1974 and
during the times in question.
48. Barbara Shrensky, has been a member of the Board of Directors of Fort Myer since 1974 and
during the times in question.
49. James Abely, Washington DC Lawyer employed by Goodwin Proctor
50. Lauren Shrensky, was a member of the Board of Directors Civil Construction LLC during the times in
question.
51. Jason Shrensky, was a member of the Board of Directors Civil Construction LLC, during the
times in question.
52. CNA Financial Corp. It is now known that CNA Financial Corp has been "doing business as"
CNA Surety during the time in question.
53. The following Subsidiary and Officer may be determined by the Court to be Necessary
Parties under newly detailed evidence as presented in the Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Complaint although previously dismissed
542

54. Western Surety Company-a Subsidiary Underwriting Company
101 S Reid St # 300, Sioux Falls, SD, 57103
55. Western Surety As required by the Courts Order (Order, page 1 paragraph 2) a separate show
cause response has been prepared requesting the Court reconsider its previous dismissal of
Western Surety Company, a subsidiary underwriting company, and its official, Mr. Bruflat.
56. A logical inconsistency affecting this prospective Third Amended Complaint is the dismissal of
two of the three insurance/surety defendants from the case. This leaves only the parent
insurance company as a defendant in this case. A F.R.Civ.P (30 (b)(6)F>R deposition for the
insurance companies is expected to verify plaintiffs allegations that the insurance entities have
an active interest in the operations of the Enterprise, either by fees disguising that ownership or
other interest or some other presently undisclosed equity interest. Such inquiry is expected to
elicit the actual relationships of the parties.
57.
The Plaintiffs allege documentary evidence memorializes a decade-long pattern, either of

criminally willful gross negligence on the part of CNA Financial Corp. and Western Surety or
their subordinates, in not detecting the obvious interlocking nature of the herein alleged RICO
companies
58. The interlocking directorates and management of the sub-organizations as it is set forth in
Exhibit F. Those allegations have been documented in detailed exhibits, now available in the
record and pertain to the principal corporate construction contractors, their management,
partnerships and shell companies cited herein. (See Affidavit of Ronald Bonfilio, Exhibit A
with attachments and Exhibit F).
59. The insurance companies intentionally aided and abetted the contracting companies by failing to
take any action knowing the perjury and deception in the required bid bond supporting
documents. They still to this day are aiding and abetting the companies.
60. Therefore the Plaintiffs request reinstatement of Western Surety and Mr. Bruflat.
543

Potential Governmental Interested Third Party
61. As specified above, the criminal actions of this RICO Enterprise give rise to the interests of the
Federal Government in potential fines or damages which may be levied against the Enterprise,
itself, or any member of the Enterprise found to have aided and abetted the criminal activities
conducted and found to exist herein by this Court or a Jury. Plaintiffs have not overlooked
those potential interests. In addition, the interests of the District Court are involved to the extent
violations of the Federal Debarment has occurred in defiance of the Courts Orders affecting
some or all of the RICO members.
62. In addition, although Plaintiffs allege that the laws of the District of Columbia have been
violated also potentially leading to criminal penalties assessable on behalf of the District
Government, it would be incongruous to place the District of Columbia in the position of
benefitting from the efforts of these plaintiffs, when in fact a breakdown of law and order in the
District of Columbia has occurred precisely because the District of Columbia law enforcement
authorities, who are supposed to prevent these problems, are actually part of the cause. This
problem plaintiffs herein defer to the good judgment of this Honorable Court.
IV. COUNT 1 FACTS SUPPORTING RICO ALLEGATIONS

63. The Court specifically directed the Plaintiffs to provide a complete list of alleged statutory
violations, and to detail which defendants engaged in each violation, in an orderly, clear, and
non- repetitive arrangement", and to identify "each of the named Plaintiffs and individuals
involved in the purported violations.
64. The Honorable Court ordered the Plaintiffs to submit with specificity the crimes and who
committed them, as alleged by the Plaintiffs. This submission and the factual statements
specifying what occurred are described below and detailed more specifically and concisely in
544

Exhibits J, K and L.
65. Exhibit K consists of a table (Parts 1-12) for each allegation with each specific alleged RICO
entity (Fort Myer, Jose Rodriguez etc.) along the left-hand side of the table, and each allegation
of a RICO violation and associated code sections of criminal law in the top row. Codes cites at
times are in notes at the bottom of the table.
Requirements of a RICO Enterprise

66. In this 3rd Amended Complaint plaintiffs and counsel have considered the following authorities
in response to the Courts admonition to state the particular code section allegedly violated by
the Enterprise herein: See Exhibit K, Table 2 Part 11.
67. Substantial and new RICO enterprise definitions and standards were resolved by the Supreme
Court in Boyle v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 2237, 173 L. Ed.2d 1265, 556 U.S. 938, 77 USLW
4474 (2009). It remains the leading Supreme Court authority, resolving the many unique legal
questions created by the RICO statute. Boyle v. United States has been cited in over 300 more
recent cases without substantial dissent. (See Exhibit GS hereto)
68. As far as possible the materials presented have been cast in the light of this case authority,
applicable to the alleged RICO sub-entities, and the RICO enterprise itself.
69. In that case, the Supreme Court confirmed the intent of Congress to lower the pleadings
threshold for RICO enterprise proof, using a relaxed standard.
70. Boyle vs. the United States, Boyle v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 2237, 173 L. Ed.2d 1265, 556
U.S. 938, 77 USLW 4474 (2009) (get actual USSC cite and insert here) clarifies whether or not
an actual structure needs to exist to establish a RICO Enterprise, and concludes that only an
association in fact is required. (See https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-1309)
71. .The Plaintiffs submit that Exhibits F, O, J (Table 1) and Exhibit K (Table 2) will meet the
545

threshold standard for establishment of a RICO enterprise, in light of the sworn factual
statements excerpted in Exhibit L (Table 3).
72. To Establish a RICO Enterprise it is necessary to have 3 elements: Longevity, Common
Purpose and Unlawful Acts and/or Criminal Violations- these actions are legion and are detailed
herein.
73. The Rodriguez-Shrensky RICO "Family Enterprise meets the requirements of a RICO
Enterprise. The Rodriguez-Shrensky RICO "Family" has longevity common purpose and has
committed unlawful acts and criminal violations.
RICO's Requirement of Longevity
74. As demonstrated by Tables 1 and 2, the alleged pattern, and practice, of violations is
longstanding and both local and federal officials are, or should have been, well aware of these
violations which took place over a period of more than 15 years. The year each RICO
Enterprise member became part of the Enterprise, and/or the number of years in the Enterprise,
is noted in Table 1 which also indicates the years the Rodriguez-Shrensky RICO Family
Enterprise operated and participated in District of Columbia infrastructure contracts.
RICO's Requirement of a Common Purpose
Pattern and Practice of RICO Activity
75. The common purpose and motivation of the Enterprise is to maintain an exclusive control and
monopoly over the District of Columbias infrastructure contracts, by any means possible, legal
or illegal, and to win contracts that maximize the Enterprises profits, without competition.
RICO's Requirement to Share the General of Composition of the Enterprise:
76. The Rodriguez-Shrensky RICO Enterprise includes any individual, partnership, corporation,
546

association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact
although not a legal entity (as described following)
(Underlined for emphasis (See 18 U.S. Code 1961 Definitions).)
Inter-Relationships of the Rico Enterprise Defendants
77. Four of the five corporate defendants form the backbone of the racketeering Enterprise:
Those are: Fort Myer Construction Company, Anchor Construction Company, Capitol Paving
of DC and Civil Construction LLC. The founding members of the Enterprise, on information
and belief are Jose Rodriguez and Louis Shrensky.
78. For the known inter-relationships of the infrastructure contractors who are in direct competition
with Cheeks of North America, Inc. (CNA) see Exhibits F and O herein. The fifth corporate
RICO member defendant, CNA Financial Corp. is an Insurance Company, but on information
and belief has financial ties to members of the group. CNA Financial Inc. is alleged to benefit
substantially, whereby multiple premiums are received from one actual entity (the Enterprise)
being treated as multiple independent bidders, when in fact they are all in actual collusion in
each bidding process.
79. Evidentiary exhibits that detail the structure and interlocking family and in-laws relations, and
executives of the RICO Enterprise are presented in the affidavit of Ronald Bonfilio and are
accompanied by detailed evidentiary exhibits. Evidentiary testimony from a former Accountant,
employed by the RICO Enterprise, details the cooperation, joint efforts, operations and structure
of the Enterprise members and reinforces the findings of Ronald Bonfilio (see Exhibits A and
F),
80. Mr. Bonfilio is a former CPA and government employee (GAO and Special Inspector General
for Iraq Reconstruction in Iraq as an auditor). He, as an expert witness and investigator, has
obtained filings and other records, documenting the management, ownership, and structure of
547

the Rodriguez-Shrensky Family RICO Enterprise directly from publicly available District of
Columbia Government records.
81. He will testify that all of this documentation was obtained from official sources and is
authentic. He will testify about the likelihood of the interrelationships alleged herein which are
corroborated by other prospective witnesses, including for example, Gallardo and Quade.
82. The relevant content of those records was summarized by Mr. Bonfilio, based on his own
management and investigative experience and his opinion as an overall expert gave a "snapshot"
of the scope of the alleged RICO enterprise, at each relevant time.
83. The result of that summary is Exhibit F, a pictorial display of the known and provable
interrelationships between the RICO entities and its individual members, supported by
evidentiary Exhibits A and L.
84. In short, the exhibits document family members: Jose Rodriguez, Aurora Rodriguez, Dora
Rodriguez, Cristina Rodriguez, Lewis Shrensky, Barbara Shrensky, Lauren Shrensky, and Jason
Shrensky holding multiple executive positions, some for over 30 years in the RICO Family
Enterprise corporations.
Unlawful Acts: Civil and Criminal Violations
85. RICO requires a pattern of criminal activities with at least two acts defined as racketeering
within a 10 year period, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter (1984) (
18 U.S.C. 1961 (5). To this end, the Plaintiffs have demonstrated this in the Tables in Exhibit
K, satisfying that requirement.
86. State or local crimes also qualify to demonstrate the pattern and practice of RICO activity
(Criminal Rico: 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968, A Manual for Federal Prosecutors, Fifth Revised
Edition October 2009 Source United States Department of Justice Manual ").
548

87. District of Columbia Code and common law also qualifies to support a RICO classification. The
District of Columbia is the primary center of the criminal activities and Maryland is the primary
location of the Obstruction of Justice violations.
88. The Plaintiffs understand the Honorable Courts previous order to be specific as to the named
parties defendant to this case, and as to the criminal codes violated by each RICO entity,
thereby creating the prerequisites to the Courts finding of the Existence of a RICO enterprise.
This has been done in this Complaint and summarized in Exhibit K Table 2.
89. Table 2 lists the numerous violations of criminal law (two or more within 10 years of bringing
lawsuit under RICO) with the particular code section of RICO or other federal, state or common
law. The Evidentiary references and allegations in this Table support the jurisdictional
application of the RICO statute by the Court (as the Plaintiffs understand the Court has ordered
to be done).
90. Exhibit J, Table 1 Lists presently known entities and members of the RICO Enterprise with the
relationships to the requirements for establishment of a RICO enterprise (pursuant to the most
recent standard applicable to this situation) shown. Table 1 also attempts to meet the
requirements of Boyle, supra, in defining the known limits of the RICO enterprise activities.
91. Accordingly and in the interests of caution, should the Court determine the Plaintiffs proposed
Third Amended Complaint is inadequate, for any applicable reasons based on the body of this
Complaint or Exhibits, Plaintiffs hereby request leave to incorporate new evolving facts into a
Fourth Amended Complaint.
Specific Unlawful Acts and Criminal Violations by the RICO Enterprise and Its
Members, with Cited Relevant Statutes and Codes
Facts associated with violations against John Cheeks
549

Death Threat
93. The Plaintiff was approached at Dupont Circle on Feb 27, 2010, 9:00PM by a 5' 6"male who
bumped the Plaintiff and said if you don't stop what you are doing you are going to be killed
and then walked away. A Police Report was filed and a Complaint Number assigned by the
Police Department. (See Exhibit P-1).
94. Since Mr. Cheeks has no other known enemies, the Plaintiffs submit it is for the Judge to decide
if it is plausible John Cheeks was threatened with death by a an unknown member or associate
of the RICO enterprise.
95. (18 U.S. Code 1961 - Definitions " racketeering activity means (A) any act or threat
involving murder, .)
Attempted Murder
97. Three murder attempts were made from September 21, 2012, on or about July 30th, 2012, and
May 2013. In the Washington DC Metropolitan area, by vehicle tampering (a technique used by
criminals, to make murder appear as an accident). Physical evidence is available to show the
sabotage of the vehicles Plaintiff Cheeks was driving (See Exhibits V 1, V 2). These attempts
were made by unknown associates of the RICO Enterprise.
First Vehicle Tampering:
98. Mr. John Cheeks left Rockville, MD on September 21, 2012, to drive to Deanwood Street,
North East, Washington in the family car. Whilst parking there the front right wheel axel of the
car broke off. He called a mechanic, "Gene", who repaired the wheel assembly. Mr. Cheeks
watched the repairs and as what was the cause. The response was that it appeared to have been
intentionally tampered with, Presumably by unknown associates of the RICO Enterprise with
intent to murder or injure.
550

Second Vehicle Tampering:
99. On a second occasion, about May 2013, Mr. Cheeks was parking his car and had backed up two
feet to finish the maneuver when the drivers side front wheel axel broke off. "Gene a
mechanic came to repair it. This occurred at the rear of 1110 6th, N.W. Washington, D.C. on or
about May, 2013. This broke presumably by action of unknown associates of the RICO
Enterprise with intent to murder or injure.
Third Vehicle Tampering:
100. On or about July 30th, 2012 the Plaintiff heard a noise on the bus he was driving on
Pennsylvania Ave NW. At the same time as the vehicle began to shudder. When he parked, the
bus on 11th Street NW the Plaintiff saw the right rear wheel was coming away from the axel.
The lugs and been loosened. The Plaintiff called the bus company who re-attached the wheel.
(18 U.S. Code 1961 - Definitions " racketeering activity means (A) any act or threat
involving murder)
Destruction of Property and Theft
102. Plaintiff John Cheeks parked his rented vehicle at 1111 6th St NW, DC on or about August 23,
2013, and entered the premises situated at 1110 6th St NW. When he returned to his vehicle a
short time later, the right passenger window had been broken. The only item missing from the
vehicle, which contained other valuables, was a brief case holding documents and tape recorder
with recordings relevant to the court case against Fort Myer. Police attended the scene. There is
a witness to the damage and to the arrival of the police officer. (See Exhibits: Affidavit of John
551

Cheeks and Police Reports).
103. This breaking and entering and theft was caused by unknown at this time, RICO Associate,
aided and abetted by RICO Enterprise (See Exhibit K Table 2 Part 6 for Codes)
Stalking of John Cheeks
105. From 2009 to the present John Cheeks was followed more than 20 times in the Greater
Washington area. On several occasions he took the license plate numbers of those cars. One
time Ronald Bonfilio was with him in the car as he turned into a dead end street in a quiet
neighborhood. The car that was following him at the time also turned into the dead end street,
and when John Cheeks turned around to exit the dead-end the following car turned to continue
tailing him. The drivers of the vehicles following and individuals stalking John Cheeks are
believed to be associates of the Rico Enterprise. (Codes Title 22. Criminal Offenses and
Penalties. Subtitle I. Criminal Offences. Chapter 31A. Stalking .D.C. Code 22-3133 (2015)
Retaliating Against a Witness, Victim or Informant and Tampering With a Witness, Victim or
Informant: John Cheeks
107. John Cheeks, witnessed multiple times, in the Bid rooms, on the dates over the past 10 years
which each bid was submitted, the submission of unlawful submission of perjured bids by the
defendant construction companies, all swearing falsely that they were unaffiliated. Cheeks also
has personally observed each of the representatives as witness to these actions and other
violations of the RICO Enterprise which included "Attempted Murder" "Destruction of
Property and Theft" "Stalking "Election Tampering cited in this Complaint." Which were all
actions which involved "Retaliating Against a Witness, Victim or Informant and Tampering
With a Witness, Victim or Informant" (See Exhibit CH, Cheeks affidavit) r (For Codes See
552

Exhibit K Table 2 Part 5)
Violations by RICO Enterprise in Contracting for DC Government Infrastructure

Contracts.
Bribery
109. Generally available public information including guilty pleas involving actual or implicit
participation by the RICO Enterprise and/or individual members of the RICO Enterprise has
repeatedly occurred over the past 15 years in the District of Columbia.
110. Fort Myer and associates were convicted of bribery within the history of the Enterprise in the
District of Columbia, as a pattern and practice, demonstrate bribery or related favoritism to be
one of its standard operating practices.
111. On or about 2/13/2002 Florentino Gregorio and C&F Construction were convicted and
Sentenced for Bribery in Washington DC, CASE #: 1:00-cr-00200-CKK (See Exhibit BR 4)
112. On or about April 2003 Fort Myer Construction Company was sentenced for Bribery
conviction, for Acts during 1995-1998 in Washington DC. On April 8, 2003, U.S. District Court
Judge Colleen K. Kotelly ordered the company to pay nearly $1 million in criminal and civil
fines, plus restitution to the Federal Highway Administration, for its part in the conspiracy that
involved nine D.C. Department of Public Works employees from 1995 through March 1998. All
nine DPW workers pleaded guilty and were dismissed from their jobs. Six are waiting
sentencing later this year. (See Exhibit BR 2)
113. New evidence includes testimonial evidence involving bundling of cash for forwarding to
District of Columbia and other elected officials. In the new materials, the use of couriers to
553

accomplish such objectives allegedly are also part of the common practice of Defendants herein.
114. Testimony in the Stephen Amos v. District of Columbia (Cite Case Number), indicates that
Discovery would yield additional instances of bribery. Depositions of RICO members are
expected to successfully detail such activities within the strictures of constitutional limitations
on self incrimination.
115. This subject is known to be detailed in the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other
Federal organizations. Until Such discovery is allowed Plaintiffs cannot be more specific.
Consequences of Bribery to Cheeks and CNA Inc.

116. Plaintiff Cheeks alleges that, because of the history of bid rigging and bought and paid for
political favoritism, the Contracting Officials did not take such steps as they were obliged to
give CNA Inc. the opportunity.
117. Moreover, as a matter of obvious fact, if the criminal actions of Fort Myer et al had been
known, a disqualification would have been made for all relevant bids.
118. In that event CNA/Cheeks, as the low bidder would have been profoundly acceptable to any
reasonable banker as his own bank recognized. The reason follows: When the RICO Enterprise
bidders are disqualified (for whatever reason), the award, would go to the renaming bidder:
CNA.
119. CNA suffered loss of income because of actions by the Enterprise.
Fraud, Bid Rigging and Collusion

120. CNA alleges a collusive conspiracy in violation both RICO and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. By
those prior actions.
121. Since Circa 1984 or earlier through 2014 , in Depart of Transportation and Department of
554

Public Works Bid Rooms Discussion of Bids before submission: North West Washington, DC ,
Jose Rodriguez, Francisco Rodriguez Neto, Florentino Gregorio and others that signed the Non
Collusion Affidavits, and all the Board of Directors, Aurora Rodriguez, Barbara Shrensky,
Jason Shrensky, Lauren Shrensky, and others that aided and abetted those signing the Non
Collusion Affidavit
Perjury
122. Perjury, and the element of false swearing as to the non-collusion affidavits, are demonstrated
by each of these documents of record (Exhibit A Attachment 1, Items 1`-13 standing alone).
The Plaintiffs contend that each corporate official, who signed one of those documents, would
been hard pressed to demonstrate an absence of the intent to deceive, as to the non-collusion
requirement in the face of CNA Suretys records of actual ownership of the allegedly colluding
RICO entities. (See Exhibit A Attachment 1,Non Collusion Affidavits, and Exhibit J)
123. Even if other evidence of criminal acts did not exist (which it does) the above cited instances of
alleged false swearing furnish the numerical and temporal prerequisites for a RICO Enterprise
finding as cited by the Court in its Memorandum Opinion of October 17, 2014 (Mem Op. Doc
67 pg. 9, 2, and pg. 10 1)
124. Non Collusion Affidavits attest to a conspiracy where actual collusion exists, and using contract
bidding with intent to defraud, coupled with insurance fraud, was exemplified by the filing of
false bid documents.
125. The Plaintiffs submit that Mr. Bonfilios Affidavit, Exhibit A, his compilation chart Exhibit F,
and the public information factual attachments (Exhibits 1 through 3) furnish detailed
documentary of these violations and collusions as actually carried out in the bidding process, as
it operated, for the entire relevant period of time.
126. Further Juanita Gallardo's testimony, has disclosed that for many years the preparation of bids
has been accomplished on a joint basis, with discussions amongst bidders preceding the
555

submission of coordinated bids. She also avers Hawk Enterprises was in active collusion with
Fort Myer and other shell companies; DC Line, Inc. and FMC Civil Construction (now Civil
Construction, LLC), C &F Construction Co. (Now Anchor Construction Corporation, LLC)
etc., for the purpose of winning DC construction contracts. (See Exhibit L which supports
these facts and conclusion of fraud, perjury an Collusion. (U.S. Code 371 - Conspiracy to
commit offense or to defraud United States andadditional codes are in Exhibit K, Table 2, Part
1)
Facts associated with violations against Juanita Gallardo

.Juanita Gallardo, Witness
127. Plaintiff reasserts all prior allegations as though they were stated herein
128. Cases: Juanita Gallardo was a potential witness in the Stephen Amos vs. DC Government Case.
(This nature of this suit was described in the section Stephen Amos, Witness) and the John
Cheeks vs. Fort Myer Construction Company et al. case
129. In a Prince Georges County Court House in 2006, Dora Rodriquez, Cristina Rodriguez,
Christopher Kerns, James Abely and other unnamed RICO Members violated witness Gallardo's
civil rights in their actions in tampering with her rights and obstruction of justice
130. Gallardo has disclosed to an investigator hired by counsel for the Plaintiff, Stephen Amos, in
"Stephen Amos v. the District of Columbia" her reservations about her former employer and its
purported illegal connections to the Enterprise.
Juanita Gallardo's position in the RICO Enterprise
131. Gallardo was at the beginning of the events described herein, 20014-2005 a witness to the
myriad of abuses, amounting to RICO crimes by a RICO enterprise. The actual procedures used
by the RICO enterprise to collude in the joint bid rigging for infrastructure contracts have been
556

disclosed by Gallardo whose salary at the time was paid by another daughter of Mr. Rodriguez
(Cristina) and who also controlled the payroll reporting.
132. Cristina was then working with another corporation of the Enterprise: Civil Construction
Company (Now Civil Construction Company, LLC)
133. Although Gallardos official position was a bookkeeper for only Hawk Enterprise , she also
performed services for a centralized accounting group, headed by an accountant named, Ms.
Trudy Quade, and performed general services which included whatever needed to be done for
the group of companies, at any particular moment in time.
134. Therefore Plaintiff Gallardo was in a unique position to know the interlocking and cooperative
workings of the entire group of colluding companies. As the bookkeeper, she became privy to
the most confidential inner workings of the RICO enterprise components. Those were all
financially controlled by Jos Rodriguez and from time to time, as part of her job, it was
necessary to forward individual financial information concerning those companies to Mr.
Rodriguez.
135. Gallardo has stated she became uncomfortable with the practices of Fort Myer and the
associated companies and on January 1, 2005 she resigned after an argument with the owners
husband, Florentino Gregorio? She had no further interaction with this company (which was
dissolved in December 2006) until 2008.
Activities Witnessed by Juanita Gallardo
136. The following allegations herein were directly related to allegations in cases previously brought
by Cheeks et al, and in another private lawsuit pending at that time, Stephen P. Amos v.
District of Columbia, 08-CV-554).
Debarment
137. Gallardo has stated that during the time she was bookkeeper she observed that equipment was
transferred between companies, signs repainted and changed to convey the impression that the
557

debarred Fort Myer was not performing government contracting. Most of the contracting in
process at that time was transferred to a Family company Fort Myer Civil?, now Civil
Construction Company LLC (Also controlled by the Rodriguez-Shrensky Enterprise).
Accounting and Bid Collusion Activities
138. She also alleges she observed many other unlawful actions, from the central bookkeeping
operations of the cooperating shell companies. She was paid by one RICO company while she
worked for another. She observed the collusion in bidding and generally, in innumerable ways
became a danger to the operations of the Enterprise during the period of its debarment. (See
Exhibit L)
139. Gallardo has stated under oath, that during her tenure at Hawk Enterprises, the calculations for
all bids or all of the colluding companies were centrally controlled by Fort Myer estimators,
after which the numeric calculations were disbursed to the colluding companies by courier for
preparation of the individual bids. Thereafter, the coordinated bidding results were submitted
again by courier to the District of Columbia appropriate agency.
140. Private couriers were used to eliminate the need for the use of regular mail or electronic
delivery, thereby eliminating the possibility of mail or electronic fraud charges. The couriers
name at that time (2004-2005) was Antonio Bras. After Mr. Bras pled guilty to the prior
criminal charges involving Fort Myer (for which Fort Myer was debarred from federal
contracting) he needed to be replaced. On information and belief the replacement couriers
name is Raul Rodriguez (Raul) (no relation to the chief executive of Fort Myer). On information
and belief Raul continues to perform his function as courier for the group till today.
141. The procedure whereby the bid rigging, collusion and false swearing of the alleged
independence of each company in bidding, is now known to be part of the deception practiced
on the District of Columbias Offices of Contracting and Procurement and the public is now
558

known to Plaintiffs. That deception is provable with the probative evidence, now before this
Court, or obtainable with minimal Discovery. (See Excerpts from sworn statements Juanita Q.
Gallardo Exhibit L, Table 3, and False Non Collusion Affidavits Exhibit A-1).
Motive For The Frame Up
142. Members of the RICO enterprise acted feloniously to incarcerate of prospective Plaintiff
Gallardo in order to prevent her from testifying against the RICO Enterprise and its components
in three relevant cases: (1) the debarment at the time by Order of this Court; (2) the Amos case
and (3) the first cases brought by Cheeks.
143. Her testimony is therefore directly related to the allegations of this RICO action
144. The intentional false charging against her in order to accomplish witness tampering, the
obstruction of justice, and related RICO violations are alleged to have been performed by the
RICO enterprise, aided and abetted by house counsel and at least one retained counsel.
Individuals who Brought False Charges Against Juanita Gallardo.
145. Evidence is available that multiple entities of the Enterprise, participated in this extreme
criminal obstruction of justice. The Complaint against her and related actions were brought by
her employer, Hawk Enterprises, a RICO Enterprise member-- aided by others, including two of
Fort Myers counsel who are members of the Bar in the District of Columbia; Counsel James
Abely and Counsel Vice President, Christopher Kerns of Fort Myer. Other individuals involved
were Dora Rodriguez, in conjunction with her sister Cristina R. Minton, Hawk Enterprises .
Charges Brought Against Juanita Gallardo
146. In 2008 or 2009, 3 years after leaving Hawk Enterprises she was charged with embezzlement,
and grand larceny. Embezzlement charges consisted of dozens of credit charge purchases and
money from two Hawk Enterprise credit cards $120,000.00, the charges were made in Prince
Georges County, Maryland. Gallardo has recently sworn under the penalties of perjury that not
one of those charges of theft was true.
559

147. She now alleged, that she in fact she was intimidated, coerced and received ineffective
assistance of counsel in that entire process. Documents demonstrating the falsity of charges
against Gallardo were initially obtained by permission of the prosecutor in Prince Georges
County, Maryland, and recently verified by subpoenaed original documents under Order
Granting permission to subpoena banking records, from the Circuit Court of Prince Georges
County, Maryland.
148. Further, she was forced by conditions of her incarceration, and to agree to restitution of the
sum of $95,000 and pay, upon release from jail, as the result of the plea, restitution based upon
the false accusations. She is still paying upon these false and trumped-up charges, although
actions to void the false charges are currently in process. For example, the restitution amount
has been reduced, as an initial order in her still ongoing criminal case to $ 6,000 (the
approximate amount she has paid) while the investigation still continues.
149. Efforts are now under way to clear her name in the Circuit Court for Prince Georges County,
Maryland.
150. Gallardo alleges that the actions of the RICO Enterprise are in violation of her civil rights under
42 U.S.C. Sec 1983, actions by private parties under color of state law, and obstruction of
justice by the RICO Enterprise in filing false documents knowing that they would be presented
in a Court proceeding. She alleges that Christopher Kerns, at the time Vice President and
General counsel of Fort Myer Construction Corporation, and James Abely, Esquire, a private
counsel participated in the fraud upon the Courts thereby, and that they did so to facilitate the
unlawful activities of the Enterprise.
Retaliation by the RICO Enterprise:
151. Gallardo, a member of a group of protected (Hispanic) employees alleges that she suffered
reprisals in violation of Title VII, and 29 U.S.C. Sec 1981-1986, 1983 Actions depriving her of
protected civil rights by her wrongful incarceration and conviction based upon false evidence
560

presented by her former employer, and its officers and counsel with the intent to harm her and
obstruct justice.
152. Gallardo further alleges that the RICO Statute was violated in that the actions complained of are
a violation of RICO in the Code Violations referenced in Exhibit K, table 2, Parts, 2, 4, and 5)
Allegations of Perjury regarding Gallardo's conviction
153. In addition specific individuals, guilty of the crimes of perjury DC Code 22-2402 and/or
uttering of false instruments intended to be used as official sworn documents including
presentation of false documents (DC Code 22-1510 (1) are RICO members, Dora Rodriguez
aided and abetted by Christina Rodriguez Minton, James Abely, Christopher Kerns, Fort Myer
and its officers, committed common law crimes of perjury and/or false criminal act documents
which is alleged to be a form of common-law uttering to the grand jury . Code Violations (for
references to criminal codes See Exhibit, table 2, Part10,)
154. It is likely that many more such false documents (believed to be in the hundreds) existed during
the 15 year history of the RICO Enterprise's operations.
Intimidation of Contracting Officials.
155. RICO Enterprise members have been a factor in intimidating some innocent District of
Columbia officials and employees in Washington DC, during the time in question 2006 2012,
who have been prevented from faithfully carrying out their tasks. Stephen Amos, A District of
Columbia employee was fired . (U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 7 111; With U. S.
Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 51 1114)
Criminal Involvement and Participation of CNA Surety/CNA Financial
157. The Plaintiffs allege violation of an affirmative duty by CNA Financial Corporation, Western
Surety and Paul Bruflat form 2001 to 2014, issuing the bulk of the bid bonds which
561

allegedly knew, or should have known, of the perjury, collusion and bid rigging for a period of
around 15 years. By ignoring and failing to report the patently clear, well known collusion and
inter-relationships of the RICO Enterprise, the insurance company CNA Surety (reputed to be
the largest insurance company in North America), aided and abetted the RICO activities and is
alleged to be a de-facto participant of the RICO Enterprise.
158. The business of the insurance company in the District of Columbia is and was, to underwrite
and issue bonds at market rates to purportedly competing companies. Instead of issuing only
one Bid Bond on an Invitation to Bid to one entity (A conglomerate of the 3 construction
companies) the Insurance companies issued 3 separate Bid Bonds and therefore received 3
times the premium. The insurance company reaped a greater profit with no incentive to report
the criminal acts of collusion and others.
159. Because of the additional profits reaped in premiums, it is plausible CNA Financial Corp. aided
and abetted the RICO Enterprise
160. Documents of record in this case, prior cases, and prior iterations of this action, demonstrate the
patent affiliations of all four corporations, their principal managers and their Boards of
Directors (See Exhibit O) These documents were delivered and made known to the insurance
companies as early as 2009, but the insurance companies have ignored these documents and, to
this day, continue to aid and abet the RICO enterprise by issuing the Bid Bonds that allow them
to receive unlawful contracts.
161. Western Surety furnished the Bid Bond for at least 5 IFBs for three of the four colluding codefendant construction corporations herein. Western has admitted it knew it had issued Bid
Bonds to 3 of the conspiring affiliated corporations and should have known of the nonindependence of the companies, because of management and ownership information required on
Bid Bond applications. It thereby facilitated the fraudulent collusion, a clear violation of 15
562

U.S.C. 1.
162. The insurance company, and its officers and employees herein named, and those not yet
identified, knew or should have known that by their failure to disclose the subornation of public
employees and public trust, that they were actively participants in a fraudulent scheme and
racketeering conspiracy in violation of both RICO and the Sherman Antitrust Act. As a
regulated licensed financial insurer of great expertise, they had a duty to report the criminal
activities, of perjury, collusion, and Anti-Trust violations, and refrain from aiding and abetting
the acts alleged herein.
163. Similarly, the Plaintiffs allege that this evidence of non-independence was public information,
supplemented by Bond Application information submitted over decades by each of the
colluding companies to Western Surety, a subsidiary of CNA Financial Corp and CNA Surety.
The insurance carrier should have known, and certainly its management was aware, of the
interrelationships by blood, marriage, and ownership of facilities and property and management
of the alleged independent companies which existed between these client companies. The
insurance carrier had this knowledge for all the relevant decades.
164. The insurance companies liability depends entirely upon whether or not the insurance
carrier, through its employee/officers had a legal duty to report violations of criminal law to the
insured, to the District of Columbia Government whose money was being wasted or stolen in
fraudulent contracts., or alternatively to law enforcement authorities, both local and federal The
Plaintiffs contend this is ultimately a question of fact for the jury.
165. The current question however, when applying the correct standard at this stage of the litigation,
is whether it is "plausible" after doing more than 15 consistent years of substantial business with
the Fort Myer family of companies, the insurance companies knew their Presidents, ownership,
executives and/or managers.
166. If plausible the Twombly/Iqbal test of plausibility.2. has been met.
563

Proof of this allegation and evidence supporting "plausibility could be established through a
simple matter of a few depositions from CNA Surety, and Western Suretys key personnel, and
the construction companies, during discovery and primarily focusing on Bid Bond applications
and communications between them. .(Relevant Common Law of Aiding and Abetting a Crime
applies to this violation)
V. COUNT 2, VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT AND

CLAYTON ACT: BID RIGGING
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
168. In order to bring a private claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act, a Plaintiff must show three
elements: (1) an agreement, conspiracy, or combination among two or more persons or distinct
business entities; (2) which is intended to harm or unreasonably restrain competition; and (3)
which actually causes injury to competition, beyond the impact on the claimant, within a field
of commerce in which the claimant is engaged (i.e., an antitrust injury'). McGlinchy v. Shell
Chern. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 1988).
169. Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, "every contract, combination in the form of trust or
otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce is declared to be illegal." 15 U.S.C.
1.
170. Therefore, the Sherman Act prohibits concerted action in "unreasonable" restraint of trade, and,
some concerted actions are considered so presumptively and perniciously anti-competitive as to
constitute "per se" violations of the antitrust statute. In that case the Court may curtail its review
564

of the relevant industry and the impact of the alleged restraint, and effectively reduces the
evidence required to prove an antitrust violation. "Bid-rigging," as alleged by Plaintiff in the
instant action, is a per se violation. United States v. Sergeant Elec. Co., 785 F.2d 1123, 1127 (3d
Cir. 1986).
171. Plaintiffs Cheeks of North America and John have presented evidence under RICO Violations
that meet the 3 elements and will not be repeated here:
Elements
(1) an agreement, conspiracy, or combination among two or more persons or distinct business
entities (See Exhibit F, L, and O)
(2) which is intended to harm or unreasonably restrain competition
The intention of the RICO Enterprise was to restrain competition on District of Columbia
infrastructure contracts, by eliminating, but whatever means any contractor not in the RICO
Enterprise to receive contract awards.
(3) which actually causes injury to competition, beyond the impact on the claimant, within a field of
commerce in which the claimant is engaged.
172. The RICO Enterprise's impact has been designed to be and has been successful in restricting not
only the Plaintiff (claimant), but all other contractor in the commerce of infrastructure
maintenance and construction.
173. Defendant Construction Companies engaged in a bid-rigging conspiracy (See Exhibits A, F and
L) by submitting collusive bids to make the winning bid on the IFB submitted by Anchor appear
competitive and reasonable.
174. Defendant CNA Financial Corp dba CNA Surety and affiliate Western Surety engaged in the
bid-rigging conspiracy by securing the bonds for all of the Defendant Construction Companies
on a separate bond when they knew or should have known that the Defendant Construction
Companies were engaged in collusive anti-competitive practices made possible by Western's
565

bond guarantees.
175. On August 20, 2008, Plaintiff submitted a bid in response to the IFB. Plaintiff proposed to
furnish all plant, labor, materials, and equipment to perform the work set forth in the IFB in
consideration for payment from District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DCWASA
now DC Water) of the total sum of $11,154,500.00
176. At no point in time was Plaintiff provided the opportunity to rectify the minor deficiency in its
bid as required by the Regulation.
177. As a result of the Defendant's conduct described above, competition in the relevant market has
been injured. Plaintiff has sustained monetary damages, damage to its reputation, and loss of
goodwill, and consumers have lost the benefit of competition in the relevant market.
178. The Defendants, through their bid-rigging conspiracy, prevented Plaintiff from winning the IFB
that the Defendants had evidently allocated to themselves, by submitting the bids as if they were
from separate entities when, in fact, the so-called competing bids were submitted by companies
with overlapping and common equity interest.
179. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1 and 15, Plaintiff request for all or part of total amount of damages to
be paid by all or part by each Defendant named on this count, $553,662,030.00. (See Exhibit
SH for Computation)
Damages to Cheeks Corp from F o u r P r i o r a n d Two Recent Contract Award
Denials:
180. Plaintiffs Cheeks and Cheeks of North America, Inc. (CNA) allege damages in two recent infrastructure bidding processes and other less recent contracts.
181. In both recent contracts (Exhibits G) CNA was the low bidder. In both instances the award was
made to the racketeering enterprise. In both instances oral requests for a hearing on the awards
were made: one to the Contract Appeals Board and one to the Contracting Officer for leave to
566

cure the alleged, but curable, defects in the contract submissions. No reasonable opportunity
to cure was allowed.
182. CNA suffered a loss of profits on these final two contracts, see Exhibit G
183. CNA alleges that, at all relevant times, it had the capacity to perform the contracts, with
arranged financing and guarantees of cash Bid-Bond financing, through its sub-contract
arrangements Joint ventures were arranged by Mr. Cheeks and CNA's associates who, were and
are sub-contractors of substance. Nevertheless, CNA, the low bidder on those two recent
contracts, was denied the a reasonable prospect of a contract awards by reason of bribery, false
statements, and bid- rigging by the RICO Enterprise.
Solicitation No. DCKA - 2013-B-0007
184. As a result of the RICO violations alleged herein by the racketeering enterprise, the District of
Columbia Government, through its suborned employees, followed the same pattern and practice
of preferential treatment and as a result of this bid rigging and bribery failed to award
solicitation offer and award No. DCKA - 2013-B-0007 in the amount of $22,295,955 with an
opening date of March 25, 2013. CNA's loss of potential profit and overhead at the estimated
rate of 10% was $2,229,593. (See Exhibit SH).
Solicitation No DCKA-2013-B-0029
185. As a result of the RICO violations alleged herein by the racketeering enterprise, the District of
Columbia Government, through its suborned employees, followed the same pattern and practice
of preferential treatment and as a result of this bid rigging and bribery failed to award
solicitation DCKA-2013-B-0029 in the amount of $38,633,990, to which CNA was entitled, by
virtue of being the low bidder and with adequate financing to provide a prearranged cash bond.
The lost award in profits and overhead is estimated at $3,863,399.
186. CNA. suffered losses and damage resulting from the racketeering activity on these two
567

combined contract totaling about $42,000,000.
187. The Plaintiff also demands triple damages, as allowed by the statute, plus costs and attorney's
fees. CNA. demands damages representing violations of the Statutes and Common law,
including tortious conduct of defendants in the sum of not less than $ 25 million, or such other
sum as is awarded by a Court or the Jury herein.
VI. THE STANDARDS APPLICABLE FOR TWOMBLY/IQBAL

188. The reasonableness as stated is applicable at this stage of this case so far as undersigned is
aware as follows
189. The Honorable Court has ordered that the Plaintiffs submit, with specificity, the crimes and
who committed them, as alleged by the Plaintiffs.
190. The Plaintiffs allege they have hereby furnish such details to the extent they are known at the
present time, thereby respectfully submitting that they meet the threshold pleading requirements
of Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed2d 868 (2009) at this stage of this action.
191. The factual statements specifying what occurred to meet "plausibility" are contained above and
in Tables 1, 2, and 3 (Exhibits J, K, and L) hereto, and briefly summarized here.
192. To meet the "Plausible" standard, the Plaintiffs counsel examined available relevant facts,
accumulated during the past 10 years of alleged RICO Enterprise activities, and obtained
testimony and affidavits.
193. These materials stated or demonstrated the structure, the interlocking directorates, managers,
and operations of the Rodriguez-Shrensky RICO enterprise; it longevity, and a list of criminal
acts: obstruction of justice, deprivation of civil rights, retaliating against a witness, bribery,
perjury, collusion, death threats, and attempts on Plaintiff cheeks' life meet the threshold
required by Twombly and Iqbal, Supra, and the RICO Act as showing reasonable grounds for
568

alleging that prerequisites to this RICO Enterprise action have been met.
Conclusion- Plausible
194. It is "plausible" that after examining the evidentiary evidence presented in this Complaint
including Exhibits that the Rodriguez-Shrensky Family RICO Enterprise exists, and these VII
criminal acts, have occurred.
195. Accordingly, the more general threshold requirements of the plausibility standard in
Twombly/Iqbal are also met. Accordingly, it is certainly plausible and likely that the RICO
Enterprise exists
196. (See last 11 pages (Appendix III) to Criminal Rico: 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968, A Manual for
Federal Prosecutors, Fifth Revised Edition October 2009" (551 pages) (Important effects of
Boyle v. United States upon RICO crime standards) (Exhibit GS hereto).
VII DEMAND FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF

197. To rectify these matters, plaintiffs request injunctive and equitable relief in all such instances
where applicable. The Plaintiffs request that they each be made whole by including injunctive
relief because monetary damages alone are insufficient to remedy the harms herein alleged.
Injunctive and other equitable relief should be awarded as required by the circumstances and
may include:
A. Protective orders prohibiting any further act of violence or intimidation.

B. Protective order prohibiting bundle contributions to any public employee or
subdivision thereof tending to influence contracting.
C. Declaring void all existing ongoing contracts by the RICO Enterprise and any of its
members of the RICO Enterprise prohibited to be associated or part of in any way
any DC contract.
569

D. Ongoing monitoring by the Court for the next 15 years of DC Contracting to insure
compliance.
E.
Additional Injunctive Relief as set forth in a Motion for Injunctive Relief.
Such other injunctive relief as will make Cheeks and Gallardo whole in terms of a civil and
constitutional rights
VIII.-MONETARY RELIEF
198. Monetary Relief in the form of Past, Present and Future Damages incurred by Each Plaintiff
Herein and such other entities or persons who are found by the court or jury to have been
damaged by the unlawful RICO Violations and other Statutory or Common Law Violations
of the Enterprise and any member thereof in a just sum as determined by the Court or a Jury
sufficient to compensate for injury in such monetary or other form sufficient to afford relief
to plaintiffs herein, and deter others similar unlawful actions in the future including but not
limited to exemplary, punitive or statutory multiplier of damages in accordance with
applicable law.
199. The demand for monetary these damages totals $1,400,000,000, jointly and severally by
all Defendants itemized following to the extent possible at this time.
Equitable and Injunctive Relief To Plaintiffs, CNA Inc., Cheeks and Gallardo:
200. Plaintiffs herein alleges that they have been injured in their business or property. Additionally
Each Plaintiff has been the intended victim of criminal attempts to prevent public exposure of
the alleged violations. Mr. Cheeks has suffered personally, at times, during the years of
litigation, personal humiliation, stalking resulting in stress and emotional harm. He also suffered
from lost time and inconvenience from the several violent attempts. Injunctive relief in the
form of an appropriate protective order is requested for all victims, including both Cheeks and
Gallardo.
570

201. Gallardo respectfully requests injunctive relief, to forestall the expected reprisal and to prevent
reoccurrences of the type of unlawful actions from which she suffered at the hands of the RICO
defendants. .
Relief for Previous Contract Solicitations.
202. In earlier contract bidding, CNA was deprived of awards of 4 contracts, wherein CNA was the
low bidder, but the ultimate award was to the Enterprise members. These were presented under
Count 2 for the following IFBs: DCWASA IFB # 080020, DCWASA IFB # 090080,
DCWASA IFB # 090020, and DOT IFB #DCKA-2009-B-0025.
203. The Plaintiff was damaged by the failure of the bidding process to function and by the denial
o f co ntracts to which CNA was entitled under any fair standard of measure.
204. Because of the unlawful acts in violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. and the
instances of outright common law fraud, the contract awards in these four instances should be
declared void ab initio, as in violation of federal law, and Plaintiff submits that extraordinary
relief is appropriate in the cancellation of all of the subject contracts, as unlawful.
205. Jointly and severally all Defendants, listed in this Complaint, injured Plaintiff Cheeks of North
America, Inc. by denying Plaintiff Cheeks of North America, Inc. the opportunity to obtain
contracts as the low bidder, and later to compete, to earn profits and to grow as a company.
206. Cheeks of North America have also been injured, in their being excluded from the continuing
bidding process. Relief Requested cited under Count 2: $ 553,662,030.00. against all parties
found to have participated in the RICO enterprises including the insurance companies, jointly
and severally.
571

Damages to John C. Cheeks by RICO Criminal Acts:
The Plaintiff's that followed the dictates of the law and their resistance to the Enterprise's
attempts to suborn the Plaintiffs, has led to threats of violence or to life, to fear of actual bodily
harm, to property damage, and/or to loss of income, and all the aforementioned and criminal
actions in section entitled " VI. Relief to Plaintiff Gallardo.
207. As Gallardos actual injuries resulted from afore mentioned unlawful acts under color of state
law and Federal law, Gallardo hereby demands equitable relief and also the sum of damages
suffered against the racketeering defendants herein the sum of $25 million, with punitive or
exemplary damages, or such other sum as is determined to be just by the Court or a jury.
IX. PUNITIVE DAMAGES

208. Plaintiff Cheeks demands punitive damages to the full extent that such damages are awardable,
under the existing law of the District of Columbia, including punitive damages which shall deter
such unlawful acts, as attempted murder, threats, obstruction of justice and others, as found to
have occurred herein, under the laws of the United States of America and/or the statues and
common law of the District of Columbia.
209. These unlawful acts defrauded Plaintiffs and public with the help of, on information and belief,
the largest insurance company conglomerate in North America with over $9 Billion in retained
earnings.
Plaintiffs demand an amount sufficient to deter such unlawful acts from the retained earnings
and net worth from the Enterprises financial condition. CNA Financial Corporation has over $9
Billion in retained earnings and the 4 Construction companies, and after operating a monopoly
for over 20 years would have considerable profits to contribute to this amount.
572

X. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
210. A jury trial on all matters for which a jury trial is available under law is hereby demanded.
573

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I caused to be served, in the ECF system of the Court, a copy of the foregoing
Corrected Proposed Second Amended Complaint, with the expectation that it would be
automatically served upon counsel for all parties on the 28th day of September, 2015.
/S/ Charlton w 2428
Walter T. Charlton, D.C. Bar # 186940
574

ATTACHMENTS
XI. TABLE of EXHIBITS

Exhibit A, Affidavit of Ronald J. Bonfilio, Documents Examiner:
Pages
6
Evidentiary Attachments to Exhibit A

Exhibit A, Attachment 1, Non Collusion Affidavits
27
Exhibit A, Attachment 2, Bid Bonds2
11
Exhibit A Attachment 3 Public Documents Used to Create Exhibit F
24
Exhibit BJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
Exhibit BR 1 Fort Myer's Friends, Bribery and Debarment 2003 NEED COVER
Exhibit BR 4 Bribery: Sentencing Gregorio and C&F Docket Sheet Excerpts
Exhibit CH Cheeks Affidavit
Exhibit DR 1Civil Construction, LLC 2 year report Principals
Exhibit F Color Chart-Racketeering Enterprise in DC
Exhibit G. Two Recent Contracts wherein CNA, Inc. was low Bidder
Exhibit GS: DOJ Guidance Manual Appendix III-Effect of Boyle vs. US on RICO
11
Exhibit J Table I Factors Establishing RICO Enterprise
Exhibit K Table II-Criminal Violations by RICO enterprise
Exhibit L Table III Gallardo Sworn Statements-Excerpts
Exhibit O Defendant's Affiliation Matrix
Exhibit P-1 Police Reports: Mercedes Break in and Threat at DuPont Circle
Exhibit S-1 Fort Myer Dept. of Small and Local Business Application Excerpts
15
Exhibit S-2 Anchor Dept. of Small and Local Business Application Excerpts
11
Exhibit S-3 Capital Paving, Dept. of Small and Local Business Application Excerpts
12
Exhibit SH Sherman Anti Trust Damages
Exhibit V- 1 Ball Joint Damage

Exhibit V-2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 2003
Mercedes Benz C230 Report from "Safercar"
7
6
575
576
577
578
LEROY COOK's DEATH - GAIL HUFF'S (WJLA) REPORT

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/06/fort-myer-construction-worker-killed77106.html#commentformstory77106
June 14 2012, 1100 block of W Street NE, June 18 2009 Capitol heights,MD
Gail Huff wjla ID Pol 202 727 4245
LEROY COOK
Suddenly entered into eternal rest after a tragic accident on Tuesday, June 19, 2012. Beloved
husband of Beatrice Cook;
devoted father of Raymond, Deborah, Apple, Victor, Daphne, Dawn and Lashawn.
Also survived by 16 grandchildren, 17 great-grandchildren, 17 great great-grandchildren; three
sisters, Shirley, Barbara and Gloria; sister-in-law, Bettie; brother-in-law, Paul and Jake; nieces,
nephews, cousins, other relatives and a host of friends.
Services to be held on Friday, June 29. Visitation 9:30 a.m., funeral service to follow at 11 a.m.
at Israel Baptist Church, 1251 Saratoga Ave. N.E. Interment Harmony Memorial Park. Services
provided by JOHN T. RHINES FUNERAL HOME. For more information or to send commentto
the family please visit
www.cookie84.com
- See more at:
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/washingtonpost/obituary.aspx?pid=158241778#sth An 81year-old man was killed Thursday after he was struck by a dump truck in the parking lot
of a construction company in Northeast D.C, police say.
Continue reading
The man, who worked for Fort Myer Construction in the 1100 block of W Street NE, was delivering mail
around the facility when he was struck by the truck at about 9:20 a.m.
The dump truck carries asphalt at the site.
Witnesses say that after the dump truck driver struck him the first time, they realized they hit
something, and then backed up and struck him again.
The 40 year old company is the largest supplier of asphalt in Washington D.C., working on
government projects like this bridge reconstruction on New York Ave.
Last fiscal year, Fort Myer was paid over $78 million by the district and receiving many awards
for safety, according to the company's website.
Yet. Three years ago yesterday, another Fort Myer employee was killed, under similar
circumstances in Capitol Heights, when a dump truck driver backed over him.
Tuesday at the plant on W street in Northeast, police questioned the driver of the dump truck.
Workers coming to load asphalt, just can't believe the man who waved them in everyday with a
smile, is now gone.
Read More: Struck, NewsChannel 8, Dump Truck, Washington D.C.
Join the discussion.

579
Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/06/fort-myer-construction-worker-killed77106.html#ixzz3Vv83Jmer

Follow us: @ABC7News on Twitter | WJLATV on Facebook ash.Muhkf08H.dpuf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOT PART OF THE ARTICLE

PEOPLE THAT WOULD KNOW MORE OF THIS INCIDENT
DC POLICE
Reporting Officer James Charles J Badge 4126 5D
Supervisor Byron R Purnell By#dc.govron.purnell S0571
6D
OTHER DC POLICE ON Scene

Officer Allen, Sgt Stimmel of the Fifth District
Detective Harley (Badge D21366 of Major Crash
Detective Mc. Williams of Violent Crime Branch Badge D21605
Officer Slaughter Badge No. ? of Mobile Crime
OSHA
OSHA Cyprian Alozle and
Federal OSHA Ed Rodriguez
580
We are seeking more information on
1. The death referred to in the article by a Gail Huff on Leroy Cook

2 The death of "Old Mac "
3. Any other suspicious deaths or injuries
Email to passfordcevp@mail. gov
581
9/3/2015
USAv.FLORENTINO,etal
Case 1:14-cv-00914-RCL Document
103-15 Filed 09/28/15 Page 1 of 10
CATB,CLOSED
U.S.DistrictCourt
DistrictofColumbia(Washington,DC)
CRIMINALDOCKETFORCASE#:1:00cr00200CKKAllDefendants
Casetitle:USAv.FLORENTINO,etal
DateFiled:06/13/2000
DateTerminated:02/25/2002
Assignedto:JudgeColleenKollar
Kotelly
Defendant(1)
GREGARIOFLORENTINO
TERMINATED:02/13/2002
representedby MarkJ.Biros
PROSKAUERROSELLP
1001PennsylvaniaAve.,N.W.
Suite400South
Washington,DC20004
(202)4165804
Fax:(202)4166899
Email:mbiros@proskauer.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Designation:Retained
PendingCounts
Disposition
18:209,216(a)(1)SALARYOF
GOVERNMENTEMPLOYEE
PAYABLEBYU.S.Supplementingthe
salaryofaDistrictofColumbia
Employee
(1s)
DefendantsentencedtoOne(1)Year
Probation.SpecialAssessmentof$25.00
imposed(paidinfull).ThreeHundred
(300)hoursofcommunityserviceas
directedbytheProbationOffice.The
Courtalloweddefendanttotakethe
scheduledtripinMarch2002(itinerary
tobeprovidedtoprobation).Presentence
ReportadoptedbytheCourt.TheCourt
findsthatthedefendantdoesnothavethe
abilitytopayafineinthiscase.
Restitutionof$41,000.00imposed(paid
infull)
HighestOffenseLevel(Opening)
Misdemeanor
TerminatedCounts
18:371and2CONSPIRACYTO
http://lib.law.virginia.edu/Garrett/plea_agreements/dockets/C&FConstruction.htm
Disposition
582
1/10
9/3/2015
103-15 Filed 09/28/15 Page 2 of 10
DEFRAUDTHEUNITEDSTATES
Conspiracy,Aiding,Abettingand
CausinganActtobeDone
(1)
dismisseduponmotionofthe
government.
18:201(b)(1)(A),(B)&(C)and2
BRIBERYOFPUBLICOFFICIALS
ANDWITNESSESBriberyandAiding,
AbettingandCausinganActtobeDone
(27)
government.
18:1956(a)(1)(A)(i)and(B)(i)and2
MONEYLAUNDERINGBRIBERY
MoneyLaunderingandAiding,Abetting
andCausingAnActtobeDone
(811)
government.
18:1957and2ENGAGINGIN
MONETARYTRANSACTIONS
(1214)
government.
18:1020and2HIGHWAYPROJECTS
HighwayProjectFraud,Aidingand
(1522)
government.
(2330)
government.
HighestOffenseLevel(Terminated)
Felony
Complaints
Disposition
None
Assignedto:JudgeColleenKollar
Kotelly
Defendant(2)
C&FCONSTRUCTIONCO.
C&FCONSTRUCTIONCOMPANY
representedby MarkJ.Biros
(Seeaboveforaddress)
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Designation:Retained
583
2/10
9/3/2015
103-15 Filed 09/28/15 Page 3 of 10
PendingCounts
Disposition
18:201(c)(1)(A)BRIBERYOFPUBLIC
OFFICIALSANDWITNESSES
PaymentofaGratuity
(1s)
DefendantsentencedtoOne(1)Year
Probation.SpecialAssesmentof$400.00
imposed(paidinfull).Presentence
ReportadoptedbytheCourt.Restutition
intheamountof$41,000.00imposed
(paidinfull).
HighestOffenseLevel(Opening)
Felony
TerminatedCounts
Disposition
18:371and2CONSPIRACYTO
DEFRAUDTHEUNITEDSTATES
Conspiracy,Aiding,Abettingand
CausinganActtobeDone
(1)
government.
18:201(b)(1)(A),(B)&(C)and2
BRIBERYOFPUBLICOFFICIALS
ANDWITNESSESBriberyandAiding,
(27)
government.
18:1956(a)(1)(A)(i)and(B)(i)and2
MONEYLAUNDERINGBRIBERY
(811)
government.
18:1957and2ENGAGINGIN
MONETARYTRANSACTIONS
(1214)
government.
(1522)
government.
(2330)
government.
HighestOffenseLevel(Terminated)
Felony
Complaints
Disposition
584
3/10
9/3/2015
103-15 Filed 09/28/15 Page 4 of 10
None
Plaintiff
UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA
representedby RogerWilliamBurke,Jr
U.S.ATTORNEY'SOFFICE
JudiciaryCenterBuilding
555FourthStreet,NW
Room5921
Washington,DC20530
(202)5147544
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
DateFiled
DocketText
06/13/2000
1 INDICTMENTfiledagainstGREGARIOFLORENTINO(1)count(s)1,27,811,
1214,1522,2330,C&FCONSTRUCTIONCO(2)count(s)1,27,811,1214,
1522,2330.(FORFEITUREALLEGATION)(aet)Modifiedon06/16/2000
(Entered:06/16/2000)
06/13/2000
CASEASSIGNEDtoJudgeColleenKollarKotellyastoGREGARIO
FLORENTINO,C&FCONSTRUCTIONCO.(aet)(Entered:06/16/2000)
06/13/2000
AttorneyrepresentationforUSAbyRogerWilliamBurkeJr.(aet)(Entered:
06/16/2000)
06/13/2000
PDIDANDDATEOFBIRTHforGREGARIOFLORENTINO:DOB:02/01/61
(su)(Entered:06/16/2000)
06/30/2000
SCHEDULINGNOTICEastoGREGARIOFLORENTINO,C&F
CONSTRUCTIONCO:Arraignmentsetfor10:007/12/00forGREGARIO
FLORENTINO,forC&FCONSTRUCTIONCO.beforeJudgeColleenKollar
Kotelly.(dot)(Entered:07/03/2000)
07/14/2000
ARRAIGNMENTheldbeforeMag.JudgeDeborahA.Robinson(MJ)asto
GREGARIOFLORENTINO(1)count(s)1,27,811,1214,1522,2330:
AttorneyappearanceforGREGARIOFLORENTINObyMarkBiros.Pleanot
guiltyenteredbyGREGARIOFLORENTINO(1)count(s)1,27,811,1214,15
22,2330.Statushearingsetfor4:009/29/00forGREGARIOFLORENTINO.
Counselfordefendantmovesforexclusionoftimeunderthespeedytrialact.Court
orderscounseltodeliverorderforsignaturetochambersby7/17/00.Defendant
Released/ReleaseIssued.Reporter:CT250097,Lines2271640(erd)Modifiedon
07/21/2000(Entered:07/19/2000)
07/14/2000
4 BONDfiledandapprovedbyMag.JudgeDeborahA.Robinson(MJ)asto
GREGARIOFLORENTINO:forpersonalrecognizance.Dftaddr:1208
ChadsworthCourt,McLean,VA22102.(erd)(Entered:07/21/2000)
07/17/2000
5 JOINTMOTIONfiledbyGREGARIOFLORENTINO,C&FCONSTRUCTION
CO,USAforexclusionsfromcomputationoftimeundertheSpeedyTrialAct.
(hsj)(Entered:07/24/2000)
585
4/10
9/3/2015
103-15 Filed 09/28/15 Page 5 of 10
07/18/2000
2 ORDERbyJudgeColleenKollarKotellyastoGREGARIOFLORENTINO,C&F
CONSTRUCTIONCO:TheJointMotionforExclusionfromComputationofTime
UndertheSpeedyTrialAct,andthefactorsenumeratedunder18U.S.C.3161is
granted.ThedaysbetweenarraignmentofdefendantsFLORENTINOGREGORIO
ANDC&FCONSTRUCTIONCOMPANYon7/14/00,andthefirstscheduled
conferenceon9/29/00shallbeexcludedforconsiderationundertheSpeedyTrial
Act,18U.S.C.3161.(N)(hsj)(Entered:07/21/2000)
07/18/2000
3 ORDERbyMag.JudgeDeborahA.Robinson(MJ)astoGREGARIO
FLORENTINO,C&FCONSTRUCTIONCO:TheJointMotionforExclusion
fromComputationofTimeUndertheSpeedyTrialAct,andthefactorsenumerated
under18U.S.C.3161isgranted.Thedaysbetweenarraignmentofdefendants
FLORENTIONGREGORIOANDC&FCONSTRUCTIONCOMPANYon
7/14/00,andthefirstscheduledstatusconferenceon9/29/00shallbeexcluded
fromconsiderationundertheSpeedyTrialAct,18U.S.C.3161.(N)(hsj)(Entered:
07/21/2000)
09/13/2000
6 MOTIONfiledbyGREGARIOFLORENTINOtomodifypretrialconditionsof
release(aet)(Entered:09/15/2000)
09/15/2000
7 ORDERbyJudgeColleenKollarKotellyastoGREGARIOFLORENTINO:
grantingmotiontomodifypretrialconditionsofrelease[61]astoGREGARIO
FLORENTINO(1)(N)(aet)(Entered:09/27/2000)
09/28/2000
CO,USAastoGREGARIOFLORENTINO,C&FCONSTRUCTIONCOto
continuestatushearing.(aet)(Entered:10/02/2000)
10/03/2000
CONSTRUCTIONCO:grantingmotiontocontinuestatushearing.[81]asto
GREGARIOFLORENTINO(1),C&FCONSTRUCTIONCO(2)(N)(aet)
(Entered:10/05/2000)
10/24/2000
CO,USAastoGREGARIOFLORENTINO,C&FCONSTRUCTIONCOto
continueStatusHearing.(hsj)(Entered:10/25/2000)
10/25/2000
CONSTRUCTIONCO:grantingmotiontocontinueStatusHearing.[101]asto
GREGARIOFLORENTINO(1),C&FCONSTRUCTIONCO(2)Statushearing
setfor9:3011/6/00.(N)(aet)(Entered:10/27/2000)
11/03/2000
12 MOTIONfiledbyUSAastoGREGARIOFLORENTINO,C&F
CONSTRUCTIONCOtocontinuestatushearing(aet)(Entered:11/08/2000)
11/06/2000
STATUSHEARINGbeforeJudgeColleenKollarKotellyastoGREGARIO
FLORENTINO,C&FCONSTRUCTIONCO:Statushearingsetfor9:0012/21/00
forGREGARIOFLORENTINO,forC&FCONSTRUCTIONCO.Defendant
continuestowaiveSpeedyTrial.DefendantcontinuedonPRbond.Reporter:
EdwardHawkins(hsj)(Entered:11/07/2000)
11/08/2000
CONSTRUCTIONCO:Caseshallproceedtotriallaterthanseventydaysfromthe
dateofarraignmentofthedefendant(N)(aet)(Entered:11/24/2000)
586
5/10
9/3/2015
12/21/2000
103-15 Filed 09/28/15 Page 6 of 10
FLORENTINO,C&FCONSTRUCTIONCO:Statushearingsetfor9:152/22/01
forGREGARIOFLORENTINO,forC&FCONSTRUCTIONCO.Government
willreleaseBradymaterialby1/15/01forGREGARIOFLORENTINO,forC&F
CONSTRUCTIONCO.Oralmotionbygovernmenttounsealcriminalcasesheard
andgranted.DefendantcontinuedonPRbond.Reporter:EdwardHawkins.(aet)
Modifiedon12/28/2000(Entered:12/28/2000)
01/22/2001
14 MOTIONfiledbyGREGARIOFLORENTINOtomodifypretrialconditionsof
release(hsj)(Entered:01/26/2001)
01/25/2001
grantingmotiontomodifypretrialconditionsofrelease[141]astoGREGARIO
FLORENTINO(1).(SeeOrderforDetails)(N)(hsj)(Entered:02/01/2001)
02/22/2001
STATUSHEARINGbeforeJudgeColleenKollarKotellyastoC&F
CONSTRUCTIONCO:Statushearingsetfor4:303/19/01forC&F
CONSTRUCTIONCO.Reporter:EdwardHawkins(aet)(Entered:03/07/2001)
02/22/2001
FLORENTINO:Statushearingsetfor4:303/19/01forGREGARIO
FLORENTINO.Defendantcontinuedonbond.Reporter:EdwardHawkins(aet)
(Entered:03/07/2001)
02/23/2001
16 TRANSCRIPTfiledastoGREGARIOFLORENTINO,C&FCONSTRUCTION
COfordateof12/21/00.Reporter:EdwardN.Hawkins(hsj)(Entered:03/07/2001)
03/30/2001
CONSTRUCTIONCO.DefendantcontinuedonPRbond.Reporter:Gordon
Slodysko(hsj)(Entered:04/05/2001)
05/02/2001
CONSTRUCTIONCO:Statushearingsetfor9:307/16/01,motionsdueby
5/25/01,responsetomotiondueby6/15/01,replytoresponsetomotiondueby
6/27/01forC&FCONSTRUCTIONCO.DefendantcontinuedonPRbond.
Reporter:EdwardHawkins(aet)(Entered:05/08/2001)
05/02/2001
FLORENTINO:Statushearingsetfor9:307/16/01,motionsdueby5/25/01,
responsetomotiondueby6/15/01,replytoresponsetomotiondueby6/27/01for
GREGARIOFLORENTINO.DefendantcontinuedonPRbond.Reporter:Edward
Hawkins(aet)(Entered:05/08/2001)
05/25/2001
17 MOTIONfiledbyGREGARIOFLORENTINO,C&FCONSTRUCTIONCOto
extendtimeto6/4/01withinwhichtofilepretrialmotions(aet)(Entered:
06/01/2001)
05/31/2001
CONSTRUCTIONCO:grantingmotiontoextendtimeto6/4/01withinwhichto
filepretrialmotions[171]astoGREGARIOFLORENTINO(1),C&F
CONSTRUCTIONCO(2)(N)(aet)(Entered:06/07/2001)
06/04/2001
18 MOTIONfiledbyGREGARIOFLORENTINO,C&FCONSTRUCTIONCOfor
587
6/10
9/3/2015
103-15 Filed 09/28/15 Page 7 of 10
discoveryAttachments(8)(hsj)(Entered:06/05/2001)
06/08/2001
21 MOTIONfiledbyGREGARIOFLORENTINOtomodifyconditionsofreleaseso
thatdefendantmaytraveltoPhoenix,ArizonaduringtheperiodbetweenJune16
23,2001(aet)(Entered:06/21/2001)
06/11/2001
grantingmotiontomodifyconditionsofreleasesothatdefendantmaytravelto
Phoenix,ArizonaduringtheperiodbetweenJune1623,2001[211]asto
GREGARIOFLORENTINO(1)Defendantmustprovidepretrialserviceswithan
itineraryofhistravelplansandaddressinArizona(N)(aet)(Entered:06/21/2001)
06/15/2001
23 MOTIONfiledbyUSAastoGREGARIOFLORENTINO,C&F
CONSTRUCTIONCOtoextendtimeto7/2/01torespondtodefendant'smotion
fordiscovery(aet)(Entered:06/26/2001)
06/20/2001
CONSTRUCTIONCO:grantinggovernment'smotiontoextendtimeforfilingits
responsetodefendantsmotionfordiscovery(N)(aet)(Entered:06/21/2001)
07/02/2001
24 RESPONSEbyUSAastoGREGARIOFLORENTINO,C&FCONSTRUCTION
COtomotionfordiscovery[181]byC&FCONSTRUCTIONCO,GREGARIO
FLORENTINO(hsj)(Entered:07/05/2001)
07/09/2001
25 REPLYbyGREGARIOFLORENTINO,C&FCONSTRUCTIONCOtoresponse
[241]byUSA(hsj)(Entered:07/10/2001)
07/16/2001
FLORENTINO:Defendant'smotionformodifiedconditionsofreleasetotravelto
Arizonacounselfordefendanttofileproposedorder.Statushearingsetfor9:00
7/31/01forGREGARIOFLORENTINO.DefendantcontinuedonPRbond.
Reporter:MillerReportingCo.,SusanHarris(erd)(Entered:07/31/2001)
07/17/2001
26 ORDERbyJudgeColleenKollarKotellyastoGREGARIOFLORENTINO:That
theunopposedmotiontomodifypretrialconditionsofreleasearemodifiedto
permithimtotraveltoPhoenix,ArizonaduringthepriodbetweenAugust2330,
2001.Allotherconditionspreviouslyimposedremainineffect.Thatheprovidean
itineraryofhistravelplansandaddressinArizonatoPretrialServices.(N)(erd)
(Entered:07/18/2001)
07/31/2001
CONSTRUCTIONCO.DefendantcontinuedonPRbond.Reporter:DavidA.
Kasdan,MillerReportingCompany(hsj)(Entered:08/01/2001)
07/31/2001
FLORENTINO.DefendantcontinuedonPRbond.Reporter:DavidA.Kasdan,
MillerReportingCompany(hsj)(Entered:08/01/2001)
08/22/2001
FLORENTINO:Bradyhearingsetfor2:009/17/01beforeJudgeKollarKotelly
juryselectionsetfor11/2/01trialsetfor9:0011/27/01forGREGARIO
FLORENTINO.DefendantcontinuedonPRbond.Reporter:FrankRangus(hsj)
588
7/10
9/3/2015
103-15 Filed 09/28/15 Page 8 of 10
(Entered:09/24/2001)
08/22/2001
CONSTRUCTIONCO:Bradyhearingsetfor2:009/1/01beforeJudgeKollar
Kotellyjuryselectionsetfor11/2/01at9:00trialsetfor9:0011/2/01forC&F
CONSTRUCTIONCO.DefendantcontinuedonPRbond.Reporter:FrankRangus
09/17/2001
FLORENTINO.DefendantcontinuedonPRbond.Reporter:EdwardHawkins
09/17/2001
CONSTRUCTIONCO.DefendantcontinuedonPRbond.Reporter:Edward
Hawkins(hsj)(Entered:09/18/2001)
10/03/2001
FLORENTINO.DefendantcontinuedonPRbond.Reporter:WilliamMcAllister
10/03/2001
CONSTRUCTIONCO.DefendantcontinuedonPRbond.Reporter:William
McAllister(hsj)(Entered:10/05/2001)
11/13/2001
27 MOTION(UNOPPOSED)filedbyGREGARIOFLORENTINO,C&F
CONSTRUCTIONCOtocontinueplea,andsentencinghearing.(hsj)(Entered:
11/15/2001)
11/15/2001
CONSTRUCTIONCO:grantingmotiontocontinueplea[271]astoGREGARIO
FLORENTINO(1),C&FCONSTRUCTIONCO(2)pleasetfor4:0012/7/01for
GREGARIOFLORENTINO,forC&FCONSTRUCTIONCO.Sentencesetfor
4:0012/7/01forGREGARIOFLORENTINO,forC&FCONSTRUCTIONCO.
(N)(aet)(Entered:11/30/2001)
12/03/2001
29 MEMORANDUMinAidofSentencingfiledbyGREGARIOFLORENTINO,
C&FCONSTRUCTIONCO.exhibits(AB)(COPY)(aet)(Entered:12/07/2001)
12/06/2001
31 NOTICEOFTHEELEMENTbyUSAastoGREGARIOFLORENTINO,C&F
CONSTRUCTIONCO.(hsj)(Entered:12/10/2001)
12/06/2001
32 SUPERSEDINGINFORMATIONfiledagainstGREGARIOFLORENTINO(1)
count(s)1s.(aet)(Entered:12/11/2001)
12/06/2001
33 SUPERSEDINGINFORMATIONfiledagainstC&FCONSTRUCTIONCO(2)
count(s)1s.(aet)(Entered:12/11/2001)
12/06/2001
34 COMBINEDPROFFEROFEVIDENCEbyUSAastoGREGARIO
12/06/2001
35 MEMORANDUMinAidofSentencingfiledbyUSAastoGREGARIO
589
8/10
9/3/2015
103-15 Filed 09/28/15 Page 9 of 10
12/07/2001
CONSTRUCTIONCO:theClerkoftheCourtistodeposittwochecksinthe
amountfortyonethousanddollarsandfourhundreddollars,intotheregistryofthe
Courtinaninterestbearingaccountuntilfurthernotice.(N)(aet)(Entered:
12/21/2001)
12/07/2001
ARRAIGNMENTheldbeforeJudgeColleenKollarKotellyastoGREGARIO
FLORENTINO(1)count(s)1s:PleaguiltyenteredbyGREGARIOFLORENTINO
(1)count(s)1s.Defendantwaivedfullpresentencingreport.Defendantdeposited
checksintheamountof$41,000,$400.00and$25.00totheCourt'sregisterin
interestbearingaccount.DefendantcontinuedonPRbond.Reporter:Edward
Hawkins(hsj)(Entered:12/28/2001)
12/07/2001
ARRAIGNMENTheldbeforeJudgeColleenKollarKotellyastoC&F
CONSTRUCTIONCO(2)count(s)1s:AttorneyappearanceforC&F
CONSTRUCTIONCObyMarkBiros.Defendantwaivedfullpresentencingreport.
Defendantdepositedchecksintheamountof$41,000.00,$400.00and$25.00to
theCourt'sregisterininterestbearingaccount.DefendantcontinuedonPRbond.
Reporter:EdwardHawkins(hsj)(Entered:12/28/2001)
12/07/2001
37 PLEAAGREEMENTfiledastoGREGARIOFLORENTINO,C&F
CONSTRUCTIONCO.(aet)(Entered:01/10/2002)
12/07/2001
38 WAIVERofTrialbyJuryastoGREGARIOFLORENTINO,C&F
CONSTRUCTIONCO.ApprovedbyJudgeColleenKollarKotelly.(aet)
(Entered:01/10/2002)
12/07/2001
39 WAIVEROFINDICTMENTfiledbyGREGARIOFLORENTINO,C&F
CONSTRUCTIONCO.ApprovedbyJudgeColleenKollarKotelly.(aet)
(Entered:01/10/2002)
02/08/2002
40 SUPPLEMENTALMEMORANDUMinAidofSentencingfiledbyGREGARIO
FLORENTINO.(hsj)(Entered:02/12/2002)
02/13/2002
SENTENCINGbyJudgeColleenKollarKotellyforGREGARIOFLORENTINO
(1)count(s)1s.DefendantsentencedtoOne(1)YearProbation.Special
Assessmentof$25.00imposed(paidinfull).ThreeHundred(300)hoursof
communityserviceasdirectedbytheProbationOffice.TheCourtallowed
defendanttotakethescheduledtripinMarch2002(itinerarytobeprovidedto
probation).PresentenceReportadoptedbytheCourt.TheCourtfindsthatthe
defendantdoesnothavetheabilitytopayafineinthiscase.Restitutionof
$41,000.00imposed(paidinfull).Count(s)1,27,811,1214,1522,2330
dismisseduponmotionofthegovernment.Defendantonprobation.Court
Reporter:EdwardHawkins(hsj)(Entered:02/26/2002)
02/13/2002
SENTENCINGbyJudgeColleenKollarKotellyforC&FCONSTRUCTIONCO
(2)count(s)1s.DefendantsentencedtoOne(1)YearProbation.SpecialAssesment
of$400.00imposed(paidinfull).PresentenceReportadoptedbytheCourt.
Restutitionintheamountof$41,000.00imposed(paidinfull).Count(s)1,27,8
11,1214,1522,2330dismisseduponmotionofthegovernment.Defendanton
probation.CourtReporter:EdwardHawkins(hsj)(Entered:02/26/2002)
02/25/2002
42 JUDGMENTandCommitment,withStatementofReasons,issuedbyJudge
590
9/10
9/3/2015
103-15 Filed 09/28/15 Page 10 of 10
ColleenKollarKotellyastoGREGARIOFLORENTINO.(hsj)(Entered:
03/01/2002)
02/26/2002
41 JUDGMENTandCommitment,withStatementofReasons,issuedbyJudge
ColleenKollarKotellyastoC&FCONSTRUCTIONCO.(hsj)(Entered:
02/27/2002)
04/04/2002
COastoGREGARIOFLORENTINO,C&FCONSTRUCTIONCOrequestingthe
assistanceofMagistrateJudgeFacciola.(hsj)(Entered:04/10/2002)
04/11/2002
CONSTRUCTIONCO:grantingmotionrequestingtheassistanceofMagistrate
JudgeFacciola.[431]astoGREGARIOFLORENTINO(1),C&F
CONSTRUCTIONCO(2)(N)(hsj)(Entered:04/16/2002)
591
10/10
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
CNA Financial Corp. Key People

Board of Directors
Name/Title
Thomas Firouz Motamed, 65Chairman & Chief Executive

Officer
Current Board Membership

Adelphi University, Continental Assurance Co., CNA Surety Corp.,
Hardy Underwriting Agencies Ltd., CNA Financial Corp., World
Business Chicago, Hardy Underwriting Bermuda Ltd., Verisk Analytics,
Inc., CNA Insurance Co. Ltd., Insurance Information Institute, After
School Matters, Inc.
Jose O. Montemayor, 64Independent Director
Shenandoah Life Insurance Co., CNA Financial Corp.
Paul J. Liska, 59Independent Director
The Walker Art Center, CNA Financial Corp.
James S. Tisch, 62Director
Federation Employment & Guidance Service, Inc., Diamond Offshore

Drilling, Inc., Loews Corp., Educational Broadcasting Corp., The
Partnership for New York City, WNET.ORG, The Mount Sinai Hospital,
General Electric Co., WNET/Channel 13, WLIW Channel 21, CNA
Financial Corp., The Jewish Agency for Israel, The New York Public
Library
Andrew H. Tisch, 65Director
Boardwalk GP LP, Museum of The Moving Image, American Jewish

Joint Distribution Committee, Inc., CNA Financial Corp., K12, Inc., The
Economic Club of New York, Boardwalk GP LLC, Texas Gas
Transmission LLC, The Brookings Institution, Reuters America, Inc.,
Gulf South Pipeline Co. LP, Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., Loews
Corp., Boardwalk Pipelines LLC, Boardwalk Pipeline Partners LP,
PENCIL, Inc., The New York City Police Foundation, Inc., The
Childrens Hearing Institute, Wildlife Conservation Society, Cornell
University
Don Michael Randel, 74Independent Director
Local Initiatives Support Corp., CNA Financial Corp.
Joseph Rosenberg, 81Director
CNA Financial Corp.
Marvin Zonis, 78Independent Director
CNA Financial Corp.
All Executives
Thomas Firouz MotamedChairman & Chief Executive Officer
D. Craig MenseChief Financial Officer & Executive Vice
President
John CoxVice President-Arkansas & Oklahoma Branches
Gregory M. VezzosiSenior Vice President
Christopher MiddletonHead-Business Development
Riki NiemanVice President-Los Angeles Region
Jeff ZehrVice President-Segment Underwriting
Glen CurleySenior Vice President-Healthcare Segment
Steve EarleyVice President

Steve WachtelSenior Vice President
Timon MuellerVice President-International
Gary BuonoVice President-Product Management
Roger NultonSenior VP-Producer & Product Development
Jose O. MontemayorIndependent Director
Paul J. LiskaIndependent Director
James S. TischDirector
Andrew H. Tisch
Amy AdamsSenior Vice President-Investments & Treasury

John A. BeckmanChief Underwriting Officer
Ziad KubursiSVP-Financial Institutions & Management
Liability
Lisa LanteroVP-Real Estate Professional Liability Business
John BrandSenior Vice President-Professional Services
Gary DelBuonoVice President-Product Management
George R. FayExecutive VP-Worldwide Property & Casualty
Claim
601
1/24/2016
FBIJoseRodriguezPresidentFortMeyersConstructionCompany
HomeAboutUsPartnershipsandOutreachCommunityOutreachDCLA2008imageJoseRodriguezPresidentFortMeyersConstructionCompany
JoseRodriguezPresidentFortMeyersConstructionCompany
DirectorsCommunityLeadershipAward2008
Accessibility|eRulemaking|FreedomofInformationAct|LegalNotices|LegalPoliciesandDisclaimers|Links|PrivacyPolicy|USA.gov|WhiteHouse
FBI.govisanofficialsiteoftheU.S.government,U.S.DepartmentofJustice
Close
https://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/partnerships_and_outreach/community_outreach/dcla/2008/image/washington1.jpg/view
602
1/2
1/24/2016
FBIJoseRodriguezPresidentFortMeyersConstructionCompany
https://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/partnerships_and_outreach/community_outreach/dcla/2008/image/washington1.jpg/view
603
2/2
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
FORT MYER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

ACTIVE EMPLOY(~ N4ND EMPLOYEES WHO WORKED DURIN(~2 **
Date Hired EmpI No EmpI Name
Address L2
Address LI
SEBASTIAN L ANTONIO
HYATTSVILLE PG MD 20785
5/21/2002
6/3/20 02
DAN BOOKER
CAPITOL HEIGHTS MD 20743
6/19/2002
JULIO C MORALES
STERLING VA 20164-2526
HYATTSVILLE MD 20784
8/1/2002
FAUSTO CHICA
8/26/2002
AMILCAR FERNANDEZ
10/15/2002
JOSE R GARCIA
TEMPLE HILLS MD 20748
ROBERTO C MEJIA
WASHINGTON DC 20018
10/14/2002
WILFREDO HERNANDEZ
WASHINGTON DC 20009
10/28/2002
7/20/2010
CECILIO CRUZ-SANCHEZ
11/18/2002
OSCAR A SOTO-CORENA
WASHINGTON DC 20011
11/19/2002
SANTOS D FLORES-REYES
FIDEL S CARING
NEW CARROLLTON MD 20784
12/13/2002
12/16/2002
VICTOR M GUARDADO
BLADENSBURG MD 20710
12/16/2002
JUAN J URQUILLA
WASHINGTON DC 20011
117/2003
HECTOR G RAMIREZ
ALEXANDRIA VA 22306-1201
1/8/2003
VALENTIN SALINAS-ARGUETA
WASHINGTON DC 20009
4/9/2003
HECTOR R GARCIA
STAFFORD VA 22556
4115/2003
WILLIAN HERNANDEZ
ALEXANDRIA VA 22309
4/25/2003
STANLEY T BUCKINGHAM
CHESAPEAKE BEACH MD 20732
4/28/2003
CHARLES T ASHFORD
WASHINGTON DC 20032
LUIS A VASQUEZ-PORTILLO
LANHAM MD 20706
5/7/2003
WASHINGTON DC 20011
JUAN C HERNANDEZ
6/5/2003
2/10/2004
JOSE N BERRIOS
ALEXANDRIA VA 22305
WASHINGTON DC 20011
PABLO A URQUILLA
2/17/2004
3/8/2004
WILLIAM S SWANN
PORT TOBACCO MD 20677
DERRICK MCSWAIN
4/26/2004
UPPER MARLBORO MD 20774
6/29/2004
LAWRENCE E THOMPSON
HAYNESVILLE VA 22472
7/8/20 04
JOSE N GRANADOS
ANNAPOLIS MD 21403
8/10/2004
JESUS ALMENDAREZ
3/9/2007
CARLOS R GOMEZ-ANDRADE
MT RAINER MD 20712
8/11/2004
OSCAR LUCERO-RAMIREZ
8/23/2004
TRINIDAD SALMERON
WASHINGTON DC 20011
6/27/2011
JOSUE G ESQUIVEL
SILVER SPRING MD 20901
9/15/2004
EDWIN ROQUE-ALARCON
ADELPHI MD 20783
ROSALIND R BROWN
11/3/2004
WASHINGTON DC 20002
7/5/1998
DAMIAO M CRUZ
SILVER SPRING MD 20906
4/8/2005
GILBERT J EDWARDS
FREDERICKSBURG VA 22401
4/21/2005
DANIEL NELSON
WASHINGTON DC 20019
6/6/2005
JOSEPH M CELEDONIA
OLNEY MD 20832
5/10/2005
PEDRO ALVARADO
WASHINGTON DC 20009
6/6/2005
DUWAYNE K STEWART
GLEN BURNIE MD 21061
8/12/2005
RODRIQUEZ CAMESE
FORESTVILLE MD 20747
8/11/2005
JAMES D YOUNG
SUITLAND MD 20746
8123/2005
JACQUELINE A LINDSAY
WASHINGTON DC 20019
9/1/2005
INES MELGAR
LANDOVER HILLS MD 20784
9/7/2005
BRUNO E ROSALES
NEW CARROLLTON MD 20784
9/2/2005
ROMAN CRUZ-ROMERO
BRENTWOOD MD 20722
12/4/2011
Anita Bonds
Washington DC 20001
11/29/2005
JOSE HERNANDEZ
WHEATON MD 20902
1/6/2006
FILIMON ABUNDEZ
WASHINGTON DC 20001
1/12/2006
JOSE BONILLA
WASHINGTON DC 20011
1/18/2007
LEROY GREEN
CLINTON MD 20735
1/18/2006
RODNEY LYNCH
ARLINGTON VA 22204
1/23/2006
JUAN C FLORES
WASHINGTON DC 20011
2/6/2006
JIMER SOTO
HYATtSVILLE MD 20785
2/20/2006
JOSE E GALVEZ
BRENTWOOD MD 20722
3/28/2006
ROBERT PROCTOR
TEMPLE HILLS MD 20748
4/10/2006
STEPHAN WADDY
CAPITOL HEIGHTS MD 20743
4/10/2006
ARMEDA M WILLIAMS
WASHINGTON DC 20001
4/17/2006
ANTHONY E CLARKE
STAFFORD VA 22555-0524
4/25/2006
WALLY MAHONEY
MT. HOLLY VA 22524
4/21/2006
MANUEL A MARTINEZ
BRENTWOOD MD 20722
5/12/2006
CARLOS RAMIREZ
BRENTWOOD MD 20722
**
**
0010
5-14
627
D.C. Politics
D.C. Council candidate focuses on changing demographics in

debate
By Tim Craig April 8, 2013
D.C.CouncilmemberAnitaBondssaidMondaythatthecouncilshouldberepresentativeofthepeoplewholivein
theDistrictofColumbiaandpredictedthatAfricanAmericanvoterswillelectoneoftheirownintheApril23
specialelection.
Bonds,theonlyblackDemocratrunningagainstfivecandidatesinthecitywidecontest,saidduringaradiodebate
thatblacksmakeupabout50percentoftheDistrictspopulationbutholdonlysixofthe13seatsontheD.C.
Council,includingtheonesheisdefending.
Peoplewanttohavetheirleadershipreflectwhotheyare,saidBonds(AtLarge),addingthatlongtimeresidents
fearbeingpushedoutbythecityschangingdemographics.ThemajorityoftheDistrictofColumbiaisAfrican
American...Thereisanaturaltendencytowantyourown.
BondsscommentsonraceduringtheKojoNnamdiShowonWAMU(88.5FM)underscoresthecontinuing
impactoftheDistrictschangingdemographicsonlocalpolitics.Althoughracehasbeenapartofcitypoliticsfor
decades,itsrareforcandidatestoexplicitlyconnectthetopictotheircampaigns.
BondswasaskedduringthedebatewhethersheagreedwithalocalunionofficialwhotoldTheWashingtonPostthat
someblackresidentsworryawhitecandidatecouldwintherace.Shesaidshewashappytohearthatcomment
fromGeorgeT.Johnson,headofLocal20oftheAmericanFederationofState,CountyandMunicipalEmployees,
becausesheisconcernedthatblacksarelosinginfluenceonthecouncil.
TheD.C.DemocraticStateCommitteeinDecemberappointedBonds,thepartyschairwoman,tofillthetheseat
formerlyheldbyCouncilChairmanPhilMendelson(D)pendingthespecialelection.Bondsiscompetingagainst
threeDemocrats,oneRepublicanandamemberoftheStatehoodGreenParty.
Bondsappearstobetryingtorallyblackvotersbynotingthecouncilhasneverhadeightwhitemembers.Lastyear,
councilmemberDavidGrosso(IAtLarge)defeatedthencouncilmemberMichaelA.Brown,whoisblack,resulting
inthecouncilsdemographicsplit.
Duringthedebate,Bondsalsoattemptedtolinkracetoissueswhenrespondingtoquestionsabouthousingand
628
poverty.IamanAfricanAmerican,blackcandidate,andIamproudofhavingthatasmyissue,shesaid.
StatehoodGreenPartycandidatePerryRedd,theotherAfricanAmericanintherace,alsosaiditwasimportantfora
blackcandidatetowintheseat.ReddsaidAfricanAmericanpoliticiansbetterunderstandthechallengesfacingblack
familiesintheDistrict.
Wehavealegacyinourcountryoftreatingpeopleofcolorlessthanrespectable,Reddsaid.
ThewhitecandidatesintheraceRepublicanPatrickMaraandDemocratsMatthewFrumin,ElissaSilvermanand
PaulZukerberglargelyavoidedthetopicofrace.
WhetheritsmajorityAfricanAmericanormajoritywhite,thekeyiswebereadytoservethecityasawhole,
Fruminsaid.
Zukerberg,alawyer,usedthediscussiontopivottohiscentralissueofdecriminalizingmarijuana.Hesaidcitypolice
arrestnearly6,000peopleeachyear,manyofwhomareyoungAfricanAmericans,fornonviolentmarijuana
offenses.
Wevehadablackmajoritycouncil,wevehadablackmayor,andtheyvedonenothingtohelptheseyoungpeople,
hesaid.Theyveputthemontheroad,nottocollege,buttoprison.
Thecandidatesalsoattemptedtoovercomechallengesthathavepartiallydefinedtheircampaigns.
Mara,whorepresentsWard1ontheBoardofEducation,soughttocountercriticswhonotedthathedonatedmoney
to2012GOPpresidentialcandidateMittRomneyandhasothertiestonationalRepublicans.Marasaidthathes
beenalongtimesupporterofsamesexmarriageandconsidershimselfasocialprogressive,fiscallyresponsible
Republican.
Zukerberg,meanwhile,hammeredSilvermanoveracontributionfromSinclairSkinner,whowasatthecenterofthe
controversyovercontractsduringDemocraticMayorAdrianM.Fentysadministration.Zukerbergdemandedto
knowwhySilverman,achiefproponentofethicsandcampaignfinancereform,acceptedthemoney.
Silverman,aformerreporterwhoisonleavefromtheliberalFiscalPolicyInstitute,saidSkinnermadethedonation
becausehethinkssheishonestandfairandethical.
Frumin,aWard3advisoryneighborhoodcommissioner,wasaskedwhyhesupportedanexceptiontoonsite
parkingrulesforthenewBabesBilliarddevelopmentinTenleytown.Hesaidhebackedtheexceptionbecauseother
transportationincentivessuchasCapitalBikesharemembershipsandMetrosubsidieswereprovidedtonew
629
residents.
Meanwhile,BondswasforcedtodefendherrelationshipwithsuperlobbyistDavidWilmot.Bondssaidlobbyists
areindividualswhoshouldbeallowedtoengageinthepoliticalprocess.ButBondssaidshewontbeinfluencedby
contributions.
BondssaidshewouldstepdownasaFortMyerConstructionexecutiveifshewon.Frumin,apartnerataprominent
lawfirm,alsomadethatpledge.
Ontheissueofaffordablehousing,Marasaidhewouldpushtolowerrealestatetaxes.SilvermanandReddcalled
formoreinvestmentingovernmentprogramsthatsubsidizeaffordablehousing.
Withthecityreportinga$440millionbudgetsurpluslastyear,Bondssuggestedtaxcutsforseniors.Maraalsosaid
thecityshouldconsidertaxcuts.Silvermansaidsheshesitanttocuttaxesuntilotherneedsaremet.
Ibelieveinusingtaxpolicytohelppeople,andthatisakeydifferencewiththepeoplesittingatthistable,
Silvermansaid.
Tim Craig is The Posts bureau chief in Pakistan. He has also covered conflicts in Iraq,
Afghanistan and within the District of Columbia government.
The Post Recommends
Spacey: Frank Underwood would appreciate US

campaign
Frank Underwood would find the U.S. electoral campaign amusing, says
Kevin Spacey, who plays the ruthless politician in the TV show House of
Cards.
Meet the New Hampshire newspaper publisher whos at

war with Donald Trump
The Union Leader used to rule the first-in-the-nation primary. What
happened?
Chris Christie is a fair-weather Republican
630
George F. Wills Jan. 17 op-ed, Is Christie on the cusp?, was very

favorable to New Jersey Gov.Chris Christie, a Republican candidate for
president, but it failed to mention one aspect of Mr.Chris...
631
D.C. Politics
Anita Bonds pulls in heavy corporate donations

By Tim Craig March 14, 2013
NearlyhalfofD.C.CouncilmemberAnitaBondscampaignfundsoverthepastsixweekscamefromconstruction
companiesortheirexecutives,accordingtoareviewofcampaignfinancedocuments.
Bonds,acouncilmemberpendingtheoutcomeofanApril23atlargespecialelection,isthecorporaterelations
directoratFortMyerConstruction,theDistrictsprimaryroadpavingcontractor.
AccordingtodocumentsreleasedTuesday,Bondsraisedabout$47,000sincelateJanuaryforhercampaign,and
has$45,000remaininginthebank.
Bondsfundraisinggotofftoaslowerstartthanmostincumbents,partiallybecausesheisnotcollectingbigchecks
fromlobbyistsandlocalbusinessleaderswhooftenfundincumbentscampaign.
Bondsreceivedabout$20,000sincelateJanuaryfrommorethanadozencontracting,pavingandexcavatingfirms,
thedocumentsshow.Manyofthedonationscameintheformof$1,000checks,themaximumallowedintheat
largerace.
Itisnotunusualforcitycandidatestoraisemoneyfromtheiremployers.Itsalsoroutineforcandidatestoreachout
tocolleaguesinsimilarindustriesforcontributions.Forexample,DemocraticcandidateMatthewFrumin,an
attorney,hascollectedthousandsofdollarsfromfellowattorneysandlawfirms.
Everyoneonthecouncilhasacareerandcareerassociatesandfriendswhodonatetotheircampaigns,saidBonds
spokesmanJermaineL.House.Wewouldntsuggestthat,becauseoftheircareers,thattheirvotesare
compromised.
BondsisoneofsevencandidatesvyingforthecitywideseatpreviouslyheldbyCouncilChairmanPhilMendelson
(D).
Bonds,thechairwomanoftheD.C.DemocraticStateCommittee,alsogatherednumerouslowdollarcontributions
duringtheperiod.OnSunday,severaldozenDemocraticactivistsandwomenralliedbehindhercampaignata$51
perpersonfundraiser.
632
Yet,Bondsisreceivingsizeablecorporatedollarsatthesametimethecouncilisconsideringbanningeither
donationsorthosefromcitycontractors.ThreeofheropponentsDemocratsElissaSilvermanandPaulZukerberg
andStatehoodGreenPartycandidatePerryReddarerefusingtoacceptcorporatedonations.
Bondscontributionsfromanindustrythatbenefitsfromcitycontractscouldalsorenewdebateaboutwhethershe
shouldkeepherjobatFortMyerConstructionifshewinstheelection.
WhenshesoughttheDemocraticStateCommitteeappointmentfortheatlargeseat,Bondssuggestedina
WashingtonPostinterviewthatshewouldgiveupherjobifshewasselected.Butaftershewonthecommittees
support,Bondssaidshewouldkeepherjobbecauseherbossesdidnotseeitasaconflict.Sheaddedthatitwas
chauvinistictosuggestsheshouldleavethefirm,notingseveralcouncilmembersholdsecondjobs.
HousesaidBondsactionsonthecouncilswillbeonlybedictatedbyherconstituency,theresidentsoftheDistrict
andnotanyonedonororspecialinterestgroup.
AnitaBondshasalongandstoriedcareerasanindependentpublicservant,Housesaid.Itistothosepeople
whomhercommitmentwillremain.
Tim Craig is The Posts bureau chief in Pakistan. He has also covered conflicts in Iraq,
Afghanistan and within the District of Columbia government.
The Post Recommends
The dead people of America really dont want Hillary

Clinton to be president
An overview of the trend of asking for votes in obituaries.
The strange life of Q-tips, the most bizarre thing people

buy
Q-tips really are one of the most perplexing things for sale in America.
Heres why some people drop dead while shoveling

snow
The cold weather and the hard work of shoveling snow create what one
cardiologist calls a "perfect storm" for heart attacks.
633
634
1/24/2016
AnitaBondsBecomesNewestD.C.CouncilmemberLooseLips
SameastheOldBoss?
PostedbyAlanSudermanonDecember12,2012at7:55pm
Follow@alansuderman
OnahotAugustdayin1990,MarionBarryaddressedhissupportersoutsidetheReevesCenter,adayafterhedbeatenmost
ofthefederalgovernmentscaseagainsthimondrugandperjurycharges.Thenthemayor,Barrybeganhisspeechbythanking
Godandacknowledgingthepresenceofthreewomenwhowerecentraltohislife:hismother,hiswife,andAnitaBonds.
Mygoodfriend,politicaladviser,campaignmanager,assistantdefenseattorney,ishowBarrydescribedher.
Twentytwoyearslater,BarrywasonhandtoseeoneofhismostloyallongtimeaideswhofirstworkedonBarrys1971bid
forthecitysschoolboardascendfromthebackgroundofcitypoliticsandtakeaseatontheD.C.Council.TheD.C.
DemocraticStateCommitteeelectedBonds,itschairwoman,asthecitysnewestcouncilmemberMondaynightataspecial
meetingatCatholicUniversity.BondswillfillthevacantseatleftafterD.C.CouncilChairmanPhilMendelsonreplaced
KwameFullyLoadedBrown,whoresignedandpleadedguiltytobankfraudthissummer.Aspecialelectionwillbeheld
inApril,opentoanyone,todeterminewhowillserveouttheremainingtwoyearsintheseatsterm.(Bondsplanstorun.)
BondsroadtotheCouncilaftermorethan40yearsworkingbehindthescenesoncampaignsandinthreemayoral
administrationsmarksoneofthelongest,ifnotthelongest,tripstoelectedofficetheDistrictsyounggovernmenthasseen.
Imelated,Imecstatic,BarrytoldLLshortlyafterBondsvictory.Imgladthementoringworked.
Noteveryoneisequallyhappy.Forthecitysprogressiveset,Bondsrepresentstheirworstnightmare:aBarryprotgwhowas
elevatedtoofficebytheDemocraticStateCommitteeanorganizationoftenseenasineptandunrepresentativeofthecitys
350,000registeredDemocratsandwhoworksforawellconnectedcitycontractor,FortMyerConstruction,whilethecity
grappleswithwhatmanyseeasapaytoplayculture.
JustafewminutesafterhervictoryMonday,Bondspushedbackhardagainstanysuggestionbyreportersthatshedvotein
lockstepwithBarryorthatheremploymentwiththecitysbiggestroadpavingcompanyshouldbeaconcern.Shesaidshe
didntsupportBarryscurrenteffortstomakeexoffendersaprotectedclassagainstdiscrimination.Andshesaidshefoundit
ironicthatshewasbeingaskedaboutheroutsideemploymentwhenthepresshadntaskedthesamequestionsofmale
councilmemberswithsecondjobs.
Youdontaskthosequestions,youdontsayhowmuch[malecouncilmembers]makeintheirlawpracticeorhowmuchthey
makeasvicepresidentsoftheircompanies,butyoureveryconcernedaboutme,littleolme,ordinaryme?Bondstold
reporters.
Thatsnotanywhereclosetotruetheresalong,publiclyavailablehistoryofreportershoundingmalecouncilmemberslike
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2012/12/12/sameastheoldboss/
635
1/8
1/24/2016
AnitaBondsBecomesNewestD.C.CouncilmemberLooseLips
DavidCataniaorJackEvansabouttheiroutsideemployment.Andnoothercouncilmemberworksforacompanyso
heavilyinvolvedwithDistrictgovernmentasFortMyer.Thecitypaysthecompanyabout$80millionayeardirectly,and
untoldmoreindirectlythroughsubcontractsonconstructionprojects.FortMyersownersareamongthemostreliablesources
forcampaigncontributionstolocalpoliticians,havinggivenmorethan$150,000inthelastdecade.(Thatsjustwhatsin
campaignfinancerecords.ThecompanysdonationstovariouspolsThanksgivingturkeygiveawaysgounreported.)
ButBondsfeistyresponsedoesunderscorethatthediminutive67yearoldgrandmother,despiteoneofthesunnier
dispositionsinD.C.politics,isnopushover.Ofcourse,itsnotlikefourdecadesinlocalcampaigns,oftennexttoBarry,didnt
prepareBondsforalittlecontroversy.
BondsgrewupinSoutheastD.C.,wenttocollegeatBerkeley,andcamebacktotheDistrict,whereshegotmarriedandstarted
afamily.ShehadalreadyworkedonafewcampaignswhenformerDel.WalterFauntroyaskedhertohelparelativeunknown
namedMarionBarrysbidforaschoolboardseat.
BondsbecameanindispensablecampaignaideforBarry,whorosequicklythroughtherankstogetelectedmayorin1978.A
WashingtonPostarticlefromthatyeardetailshowsheworkedlonghoursatBarryscampaignheadquartersorganizinghis
fieldeffortandtakingcareofanendlesslistofpoliticalchores.ShehadasimilarroleinBarrys1982campaignandmanaged
his1986campaign.
Inbetweenelections,BondsmanagedBarrysofficeoncommunityrelations,whichseveralcouncilmembersgrousedwaslittle
morethanapubliclyfundedextensionofBarrysmayoralcampaignorganization.
BondsshowedjusthowindispensableshewastoBarryduringhistrial:Shehelpedhislegalteampickjurors,setupatrustto
payhislegalbills,andorganizedralliesaroundthecitytoshowsupportforthebeleagueredmayor.Afterthetrial,someof
BarryssupportersthrewapartytohonorBonds.
ButBondspoliticalcareerextendsbeyondBarry.ShemanagedHaroldBrazilsillfatedrunformayorin1998(Brazilfired
heramonthbeforetheelection).AndsheworkedformayorsSharonPrattandAnthonyWilliams.Whenshewasquickly
dismissedasWilliamscommunityoutreachboss,onerisingstarinDistrictpoliticstookoffense.
Therewasagoodamountoffanfarewhen[Williams]hiredAnita,thenAtLargeCouncilmemberKwameBrowntoldthe
Post.Whatagreatdisappointmentthattheylethergo.BondsbrieflywenttoworkasBrownsCouncilchiefofstaff.
ThosedaysofworkingforsomeoneelsearebehindBondsnowshewassworninearlyTuesday.Thefourmonthsbeforethe
specialelectiondontgiveBondsmuchtimetomakeasplash,butthatsneverbeenherstyleasabehindthescenesoperator.
Underherleadership,theDemocraticStateCommitteehascontinuedtohaveabarelynoticeableroleincitypolitics.
BondstellsLLnottoexpectanydramaticmovesonherparttowinovercriticswhothinkherpastassociationswilldictateher
choicesasacouncilmember.
Idontknowthem,theydontknowme,andIlljustleaveitatthat,shesays.Imadecentperson,sotentoone,Imgoingto
dotherightthing.Sowhatistherealdealhere?
PhotobyDarrowMontgomery
SHARE
36Comments
LooseLips
Recommend
Share
TWEET
Login
SortbyOldest
Jointhediscussion
Drez 3yearsago
Thebestreportingyetonthis.Thanks.
Basedonit,I'minclinedtowatch(notwait)andsee.
Bestwishestousall.
Reply Share
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2012/12/12/sameastheoldboss/
636
2/8
District of DeBonis
Meet an at-large D.C. Council candidate: Anita D. Bonds

By Mike DeBonis October 24, 2014
VoterswillelecttwoatlargeD.C.CouncilmembersonNov.4,and15candidatesarevyingforthetwospots.
Thesearetheirstories,editedforlengthandclarity.
Name:AnitaD.Bonds
Party:Democratic
Age:67
Neighborhood:TruxtonCircle
Education:B.S.,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley
Family:widowedoneadultdaughter,twoadultsonssevengrandchildren
Occupation:incumbentatlargememberoftheD.C.Councilchairman,D.C.DemocraticStateCommitteeformer
corporaterelationsdirectorforFortMyerConstructionCo.formercabinetmembertomayorsMarionBarry,
SharonPrattandAnthonyA.Williams
Notableendorsements:TheCurrentandTheInTownernewspapers,D.C.ChamberofCommerce,National
OrganizationforWomen,D.C.TenantsAdvocacyCoalition(TENAC),andnumerouslaborunions,includingthose
representingconstructiontrades,laborers,firefightersandothercityemployees
Totalfundsraised:$161,849
Sowhoareyou?Idliketothinkofmyselfasahardworking,hardchargingindividualwhoisinterestedinservice
andmakingadifferenceinthecommunitiesoftheDistrictofColumbia.Ilikeworkingonbehalfofthecitizensofthe
DistrictofColumbia,andImalwayslookingforsolutionstosomeofthemostburningissuesthathavebeenraised
withme.Ihavearealpassionforserviceonbehalfofothersparticularlythosethatseemtobevoicelessandneed
inputandassistancefromgovernment.
637
WhatstheonepersonalorprofessionalexperiencethathasbestpreparedyoutobeaD.C.Council
member?Itsnotonething,butitstheopportunitytohaveworkedintheprivatesector,withthenonprofit
community,andingovernment.Itsbeenacompositeofwhatwehaveinthewayofservicedeliverysystemsherein
theDistrictofColumbia.AnditsgivenmeanopportunitytoapplysomeoftheinnovativeapproachesthatIveseen.
Idontlookatanissuefromonefacet.Ithasgivenmeanopportunitytolookattheprosandtheconsandthein
betweens.
Whatstheonethingthecouncilshouldbedoingonaffordablehousing?Forthelastsevenmonths,I
haveconvenedaworkinggrouponhousingaffordabilitythatincludeslandlords,tenants,andpersonswhoare
interestedinhowtohelpindividualsbecomehomeowners.Inthosemeetings,itsbeenvery,veryclearthatwehave
atremendousneedforacomprehensivehousingdatabaseonethatdetailsthetypeofhousingwehave,the
assistancethatisbeinggiven,whenpropertieshavebeeninspected,whathavetheoutcomesbeen.Ithinkthat
databaseisprimary.
Andoneducation?Educationhasmanycomponents,anditsverycomplex.Wevehaddifficultieswithour
educationalsystemfor30,40years,anditsnotgoingtobefixedintwoorthreeyears.ButIthinkwedidtheright
thingbymakingeducationacomponentpartoftheexecutivebranch.Weshould,asthecouncil,befocusedasmuch
aspossibleondoingwhateverittakestocontinuetomovethesystemforwardinimprovementofunderperforming
schools.Ireallywanttofocusonthequalityofwhathappensintheclassroom,whathappenswithteachersin
meetingtheirneeds,andonthestudents.Thatswhatreallymatters.
Wheresathirdareayouwanttobeimpactful?Imvery,veryfocusedonhousing,tobeveryhonestwith
you.ButIwouldlikeustofocusonbuildingupeconomicdevelopmentinatleastafewneighborhoodsawayfrom
downtown.WevestartedwiththeCostcoinWard5,andletsseewhatelsewecanbringtothatpartofthecity.Also
Ward7,Ithink,isripe.Ifyouwanttoexpandtheenvelope,youhavetheRiggsRoads/FortTottenarea,theNew
YorkAvenuearea.Peoplewanttolivewheretheresenergy,theresamenities.SoIdliketoseeusdomoreofthat.
Whatisthefirstbillyouplantointroduce?Mostlikely,itwillrelatetohousingaffordability.Ivedoneafew
billsonthatalreadysothatiswhereIwillmostlikelycontinue.Imtryingtoproblemsolve.Probablyitwillbethe
databasebill.
Yoursignaturebillfromyourfirsttwoyearsinofficewasameasureexemptingseniorcitizenswho
arelongtimeD.C.homeownersfrompropertytaxes.Itpassedhandily,butduringthisyears
budgetprocess,itwasconvertedfromanexemptiontoataxcreditandreducedinscope.Doyou
plantorestoretheoriginalintentofthebill,andwhatdoestheguttingofyourlegislationsay
aboutyourlawmakingskills?ImgoingtocontinuetodoallthatIcantobringrelieftoourseniors,peopleon
fixedincomeswhoarefindingtheDistricttobeunaffordable.IvebeenherefornotyettwoyearsIveauthored11
638
piecesoflegislation,cointroducedmanymore,andmytrackrecordseemstobebetterthanmany.Illjustletthatbe
said.Anumberofthingshappenedduringthebudgetseason.Ihavebeentoldbymycolleaguestotrynottotakethis
personal,andyouknow,thatsdifficult.Almosteverymemberhadamajordisappointment.PhilMendelson,the
chairman,waslookingformoneyinmanyplacestoimplementtheTaxRevisionCommissionrecommendations.So
agreatportionofthefundingofmybillwasreduced.ItwastheD.C.FiscalPolicyInstitutethatproposedwhathe
ultimatelyputinthebudget.ThatorganizationfrequentlyadvisesPhil,andhehasacomfortlevelthere.IthoughtI
wasbeingaresponsible,thoughtfulandstronglegislatortotryandmovethisserviceforpersonswhohaveservedin
ourcommunityandfacingadifficultfinancialsituation.
Mike DeBonis covers Congress and national politics for The Washington Post. He previously
covered D.C. politics and government from 2007 to 2015.
The Post Recommends
Spacey: Frank Underwood would appreciate US

campaign
Frank Underwood would find the U.S. electoral campaign amusing, says
Kevin Spacey, who plays the ruthless politician in the TV show House of
Cards.
Meet the New Hampshire newspaper publisher whos at

war with Donald Trump
The Union Leader used to rule the first-in-the-nation primary. What
happened?
Chris Christie is a fair-weather Republican

George F. Wills Jan. 17 op-ed, Is Christie on the cusp?, was very
favorable to New Jersey Gov.Chris Christie, a Republican candidate for
president, but it failed to mention one aspect of Mr.Chris...
639
April 21,2003 - News - Contractor fined in bribery scheme
Page 1 of2
Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage

front page - search - community
eCo
nomi ator
Washington's Independent Hometown Newspaper
Contractor fined in bribery scheme

Fort Myer Construction faces loss of government road projects as penalty
(Published April 21, 2003)
By KATHRYN SINZINGER
Staff Writer
City officials are considering whether to temporarily bar District-based Fort Myer Construction Corp.
from receiving new government contracts after the company pleaded guilty to bribing D.C. workers who
then inflated the cost of several road construction projects.
u.s. District Court Judge Colleen K. Kotelly ordered the company on April 8 to pay nearly $1 million in
criminal and civil fines, plus restitution to the Federal Highway Administration, for its part in the
conspiracy that involved nine D.C. Department of Public Works employees from 1995 through March
1998. All nine DPW workers pleaded guilty and were dismissed from their jobs; six are awaiting
sentencing later this year.
Fort Myer, headquartered near Fort Lincoln in Northeast Washington, currently serves as prime
contractor on 24 D.C. road projects, valued at about $113 million. About 40 percent of the federal funds
currently committed to D.C. road contracts are slated to flow to Fort Myer.
One Fort Myer employee, asphalt superintendent Antonio C. Bras, was indicted by a federal grand jury
earlier this year on 15 felony counts for his alleged role in the conspiracy. A company spokesman said
Bras is no longer employed by Fort Myer, although the company's Web site still listed "Tony Bras" as a
superintendent on April 20.
Janice Bolt, a spokesman for the D.C. government's Office of Contracting and Procurement, said
officials are "preparing paper on the Fort Myer case" but declined to discuss the anticipated actions
against the company.
Under D.C. law, Fort Myer could be suspended from doing business with the government for up to one
year or barred from further contracting with the government for up to three years. Any such action could
be appealed by the company to the city's Contract Appeals Board. Bolt said the city does not consider
contract bids from companies that have been suspended or debarred, even if the contracts would be
executed after the penalty period ends.
Christopher M. Kerns, vice president and general counsel for Fort Myer, said the guilty plea that he
signed March lOon the company's behalf and the resultant fine will "absolutely not" affect his
company's ability to complete its existing contracts with the D.C. government. Among the company's
http://www.thecommondenorninator.coml0421 03_news l.html
640
10/23/2009
April 21, 2003 - News - Contractor fined in bribery scheme
Page 2 of2
current projects are the reconstruction of upper 16th Street NW, rehabilitation of the Anacostia Freeway,
local street upgrades in Wards 2 and 6, and rehabilitation of three bridges over Oxon Run in Ward 8.
Bolt said she, too, anticipates that "contracts currently in process will continue until completion."
Kerns sought to minimize the impact of his company's guilty plea during a telephone interview with The
Common Denominator on April 19. He said he hopes any "debarment proceedings will take into account
the relatively minor nature of what has happened," with $300,000 in asphalt overbillings representing less
than 1 percent of the company's total revenue during the period involved in the conspiracy.
Fort Myer entered the asphalt business in July 1995 when it purchased a company called District Paving
and hired its management and employees and a minority owner of District Paving to serve as vice
president of Fort Myer's newly created asphalt division, according to documents in the federal court case.
A "statement of the offense" signed by Kerns as part of the company's guilty plea names Tony Bras as
the "agent and employee" of Fort Myer who paid $100 or $200 in cash bribes to various city engineers
and inspectors to accept false asphalt tickets "while knowing full well that [Fort Myer] did not deliver or
otherwise use any of the asphalt set forth in these tickets which related to federal-aid contracts."
Kerns told The Common Denominator that Fort Myer "acquired an organization that, unfortunately, had
some bad apples."
"We think we've done the responsible thing," he said. "We just want to move forward."
In addition to the 24 D.C. road contracts on which Fort Myer is the prime contractor, Kerns said his
company also serves as an asphalt supplier and subcontractor to many other companies that have road
contracts with the D.C. government.
"We have two asphalt plants and 13 asphalt crews," Kerns said. "Take us out of the market and this city is
gulping hard and our 600 employees are gulping hard."
Copyright 2003, The Common Denominator
641
http://www.thecommondenominator.com/042103. news l.html
10123/2009
1/24/2016 OFCCPNewsRelease:FortMyerConstructionwillpay$900Ktosettlediscriminationandharassmentcaseinvolving371womenandminorities[09/17
Home(/) / Newsroom(/newsroom) / NewsRelease(/newsroom/releases)
FORTMYERCONSTRUCTIONWILLPAY$900KTOSETTLEDISCRIMINATION
ANDHARASSMENTCASEINVOLVING371WOMENANDMINORITIES
WASHINGTONFortMyerConstructionCorp.hasagreedtosettlechargesthatitviolatedExecutive
Order11246(http://1.usa.gov/1iu6B1z)byfailingtoprovideequalemploymentopportunitiestoemployees
andjobapplicantsat413constructionsitesintheD.C.metropolitanarea.
AnagreementreachedbythefederalcontractorandtheU.S.DepartmentofLabor'sOfficeofFederal
ContractCompliancePrograms(http://1.usa.gov/1zsmNpP)resolvesallegationsthatbetweenJan.1and
Dec.31,2010,thecompanydiscriminatedagainst27qualifiedwomenand136qualifiedAfricanAmericans
whoappliedforjobsaslaborers,andunfairlyterminatedeightAfricanAmericanskilledlaborers.Italso
resolvespaydiscriminationchargesstemmingfromFortMyerConstruction'spracticeofassigningequally
qualifiedworkersperformingthesamejobstoprojectspayingdifferenthourlyrates,somewithfewerwork
hours.Thisresultedinlowerwagesfor44AfricanAmericanand156Hispaniclaborers.
"Strongenforcementandvigilancearecriticaltoopeningdoorsofopportunityformorewomenand
minoritiesintheconstructionindustry,ensuringthatallworkersgetanequalshotatgettingtoworkonthe
highestpayingprojects,"saidOFCCPDirectorPatriciaA.Shiu(http://1.usa.gov/QfoP9V).
OFCCP'sinvestigationofFortMyerConstructionbeganinJanuary2011duringtheagency'sreviewof
companiesinvolvedinconstructingtheU.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity'sconsolidatedheadquarters
insoutheasternD.C.Becausethatprojectisvaluedabove$25millionandwilllastmorethanayear,this
undertakinghasbeendesignatedbytheLaborDepartmentasaMegaConstructionProject,whichisa
priorityareaforOFCCP.Morethan300workerswereinterviewedoverthecourseofthecompliance
evaluation,whichfocusedonFortMeyerConstruction'semploymentpracticesin2010.
"Gettingthoseworkersinthedoorandkeepingthemisgoingtotakemorethanimprovedapplicanttracking
andbetterpaypolicies,"saidOFCCPMidAtlanticRegionalDirectorMicheleHodge."It'sgoingtotakea
concertedeffortbyFortMyerConstruction'sleadershiptochangeaculturethatdevaluestoomany
workers."
Duringtheirinvestigation,OFCCPcomplianceofficersreceivedmorethan30phonecallsalertingthemto
chargesofharassment,intimidation,threatsandcoercionatwork.Theagencydiscoveredthatsupervisors
atFortMyerConstructionusedhostileandderogatorylanguagetowardAfricanAmericanandHispanic
employees,aswellasadisabledveteran.Thesupervisorssexuallyharassedandtriedtodatefemale
subordinates.AfricanAmericanwomenwerelockedoutofrestroomfacilitiesandhadfecesleftintheirwork
trucks.AcompanyvicepresidenttriedtointerfereinOFCCP'sinvestigationbydiscouragingHispanic
employeesfromtalkingtoagencyinspectorsconductinganonsitereview.Evenafemaleinvestigatorfrom
OFCCPwassubjectedtoinappropriatesexualjokesbyasuperintendentwhileataFortMyerConstruction
worksite.
http://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20141513
642
1/4
Underthetermsofthesettlement,FortMyerConstructionwillpay$900,000inbackwagesandinterestto
371classmembersandmakejobofferstosevenwomenand30AfricanAmericansfromthatclassas
laborerpositionsbecomeavailable.Thecompanyhasalsoagreedtoundertakeextensivetrainingand
monitoringmeasurestoensurethatallitsemploymentpracticesincludinghiring,terminationand
compensationfullycomplywiththelawsenforcedbyOFCCP.
D.C.basedFortMyerConstructionbuilds,repairsandmaintainsstreets,roads,bridgesandunderground
utilities.In2010,thecompanyreceivedmorethan$400millioninfederalfundsforworkon155construction
projectsintheD.C.area.SomeofitslargestcontractsthatyearwerewiththeU.S.Departmentof
Transportation,GeneralServicesAdministration,NavyDepartment,NationalParkServiceandSmithsonian
Institution.
InadditiontoExecutiveOrder11246,OFCCPenforcesSection503oftheRehabilitationActof1973
(http://1.usa.gov/1orcsaH)andtheVietnamEraVeterans'ReadjustmentAssistanceActof1974
(http://1.usa.gov/1lnLJr0).Thesethreelawsrequirethatthosewhodobusinesswiththefederal
government,bothcontractorsandsubcontractors,followthefairandreasonablestandardthattheynot
discriminateinemploymentonthebasisofsex,race,color,religion,nationalorigin,disabilityorstatusasa
protectedveteran.Formoreinformation,visithttp://www.dol.gov/ofccp/(http://1.usa.gov/1zsmNpP).
ReadthisnewsreleaseenEspaol(/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20141513s.htm).
OFCCPNewsRelease:09/17/2014
ContactName:LauraMcGinnis
Email:mcginnis.laura.k@dol.gov(mailto:mcginnis.laura.k@dol.gov)
PhoneNumber:(202)6934653(tel:%28202%296934653)
ContactName:MichaelTrupo
Email:trupo.michael@dol.gov(mailto:trupo.michael@dol.gov)
PhoneNumber:(202)6936588(tel:%28202%296936588)
ReleaseNumber:141513PHI
(/)
643
2/4
200ConstitutionAve.NW
WashingtonDC20210
18664USADOL(tel:18664872365)
18664872365(tel:18664872365)
TTY(http://www.dol.gov/dol/contact/contactphonecallcenter.htm)
www.dol.gov(http://www.dol.gov/)
ABOUTTHESITE
FreedomofInformationAct(/general/foia)
NewslettersHome(/newsroom/newsletter)
Privacy&SecurityStatement(/general/privacynotice)
Disclaimers(/general/disclaim)
ImportantWebSiteNotices(/general/aboutdol/websitepolicies)
PluginsUsedbyDOL(/general/aboutdol/plugins)
RSSFeedsfromDOL(/rss)
AccessibilityStatement(/general/aboutdol/accessibility)
FEDERALGOVERNMENT
WhiteHouse(https://www.whitehouse.gov/)
AffordableCareAct(http://www.healthcare.gov)
DisasterRecoveryAssistance(/general/disasterrecovery)
USA.gov(https://www.usa.gov/)
Disability.gov(https://www.disability.gov/)
PlainWritingAct(/general/plainwriting)
RecoveryAct(http://www.dol.gov/recovery/)
NoFearAct(http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/crc/NoFearResult.htm)
U.S.OfficeofSpecialCounsel(https://osc.gov)
LABORDEPARTMENT
Espaol(/general/topic/spanishspeakingtopic)
OfficeofInspectorGeneral(http://www.oig.dol.gov/)
SubscribetotheDOLNewsletter(https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDOL/subscriber/new?
topic_id=USDOL_167)
ReadTheDOLNewsletter(/newsroom/newsletter)
EmergencyAccountabilityStatusLink(http://www.dol.gov/easl/)
AtoZIndex(/general/siteindex)
644
3/4
645
4/4
Fort Myer's Friends

October 13, 2003
LEST THERE BE ANY mistake, the headline of this editorial is not referring to the home of Army chiefs of staff or to
those service members assigned to the National Capital Region and the Military District of Washington. We are
talking about the District-based Fort Myer Construction Corp., which handles more than $40 million of work in the
city each year, and that firm's many friends on the D.C. Council. Close doesn't even begin to describe the nature and
extent of their relationship.
The District government is a big customer of Fort Myer Construction. For that reason, city procurement officials and
the U.S. Attorney's Office took a dim view of the company's activities from 1995 through 1998, a period during which
Fort Myer employees bribed officials at the D.C. Department of Public Works (DPW) and double-billed the D.C.
government. The company pleaded guilty in March to conspiracy to commit bribery in its role in distributing cash
bribes to DPW officials in exchange for their agreeing to accept inflated job tickets for materials that were never
provided to the city. Fort Myer also signed a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office and paid an eye-popping
$900,000 in fines. The investigation, launched in 1997 under the name "Operation Hotmix," netted criminal
convictions of three construction companies and 11 individuals, including nine D.C. government employees,
according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Shortly after the plea agreement and rightly concerned about the company's egregious behavor, the city's chief
procurement officer, Jacques Abadie III, after consulting with several agency directors, issued an order debarring
Fort Myer from working in the city for three years ending April 25, 2006. Enter the D.C. Council.
Fort Myer and two other companies debarred by Mr. Abadie have appealed his decision to the Contract Appeals
Board. But city lawmakers couldn't wait for due process to take its course. On Sept. 16 the D.C. Council voted 10 to 2
to reinstate Fort Myer and allow it to resume operations in the District less than three months after being debarred
by Mr. Abadie. And why? Members favoring the emergency legislation said the city's debarment procedures are
unfair and give too much discretion to the city's chief procurement officer. But was it only council concern for fair
play that overturned Mr. Abadie?
Carol Schwartz (R-At Large) and Kathy Patterson (D-Ward 3) dissented, and Jack Evans (Ward 2) was absent during
the vote. But Mrs. Schwartz thinks her colleagues felt political pressure from organized labor and a lobbyist who has
raised money for council members, so they caved. The legislation, if signed by the mayor, lifts the company's
debarment until a new panel can examine the case.
This one isn't even close. The mayor should veto this ill-conceived bailout and allow due process to work with the
Contract Appeals Board. Fidelity to the city's interests requires no less.
NOTE: Although not part of Document 103-14, this is a Washington Post Article
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/10/13/fort-myers-friends/938f6b3d-c017-4cd0-941e-618633eb76c8/
646
1/24/2016
FortMyerConstructionWieldsPoliticalPowerinD.C.LooseLips
PaverPower
PostedbyAlanSudermanonSeptember14,2011at7:00pm
Follow@alansuderman
EarlyinformerMayorAdrianFentystenureasmayor,twoofhistopaidesmetwithrepresentativesofaconstruction
companythathaddonatedandraisedfundsforFentyscampaign.
ThecompanywasPeakeConstruction,anditsowner,NathanPeake,wasnthappy.
Weresupposedtogetapieceofthefuckingpie,nomatterwhat,saidPeake,accordingtoanunderoathstatementgivenby
Fentysformerdeputychiefofstaff,NeilRichardson.
Whetherthatoutbursthaditsdesiredeffectisntclear.Richardson,whowouldleavecitygovernmentonverybadtermswith
Fenty,recalledthatFentydidntlikePeake,rollinghiseyeswhenPeakesnamewasmentioned.
PeakeandhispartnerParneyJenkins,theformerheadoftheDistrictDepartmentofTransportationsroadconstruction
division,didgetapieceoftheconstructionpiewhentheircompanyteamedupasacertifieddisadvantagedbusinesspartner
withtheDistrictsbiggestroadconstructioncompany,FortMyerConstruction.Anearly40yearoldcompanythatlastfiscal
yearwaspaid$78.8millionbytheDistrict,FortMyerhasquietlybecomeamajorplayerinD.C.sconstructionbusinessand
hasaninfluenceinlocalpoliticstomatch.
TherewasonlyoneproblemwiththepartnershipbetweenFortMyerandPeakeConstruction,accordingtoaDDOTofficial
whowentouttomonitorPeakesworkonFoxhallRoadNWin2007:Theywerentdoingthework.Instead,Peake
Constructionhadsubcontracteditsworkouttoanotherfirm,whichuseditsownworkersandequipmentfortheproject.
TheDDOTofficialandaninhouseDDOTattorneyrecommendedsuspendingfuturecontractawardstoFortMyeruntilthey
clearedthingsupwithPeake,arecommendationthatwasntfollowed,accordingtotwointernalDDOTdocuments.FortMyer
toldDDOTitwasunawareofPeakesarrangement,buttheDDOTofficialwouldlatersayunderoathinadepositionthatit
washardformetobelievethattheprimecontractordidntknowwhatwasgoingoninaprojectsite.
DDOTsproblemswithFortMyerandPeakeConstructionareattheheartofawrongfulterminationcasethatsbeenwinding
itswaythroughfederalcourtforthelastthreeyears.FormerDDOTChiefofStaffStephenAmossayshewasfiredafter
tellingtheOfficeofInspectorGeneralthatFortMyerwasallegedlyknowinglyandfraudulentlyusingPeakeasashell
companytoqualifyforfederallyfundedroadcontracts.TheDistrictsaysAmos,whonowworksandlivesinCalifornia,was
firedforavarietyofunflatteringreasonsthathavenothingtodowithhisallegedwhistlebloweractions.
ChrisKerns,FortMyersattorneyandspokesman,declinedtodiscussthemeritsofAmoscasepublicly,excepttosaythat
FortMyerreliedontheDistrictscertificationthatPeakewasavalidminorityownedfirmbeforedecidingtopartnerwiththe
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2011/09/14/paverpower/
647
1/7
1/24/2016
company.ItsnotclearifPeakestilloperates(itwassuedbyacondoassociationin2010forallegedlyinstallingleakyflower
bedsandneverrespondedtothelawsuit),anditsphonenumberhasbeendisconnected.
ThisisntthefirsttimeFortMyerhasbeenpartofacontroversyintheDistrict.Thecompanyhasreboundedremarkablywell
fromaveryembarrassingblowafewyearsago.ThatsprobablyduetoFortMyerbeingwellrun,butifLLwerethecynical
sort,hemightwonderifthatquickrecoveryhadmoretodowithFortMyerspoliticalconnections.
Theconstructionbehemothcurrentlyhasbetween700and1,000employees.IthascontractswiththeDistrict,Maryland,
Virginia,andthefederalgovernment.Itownstheonlytwoasphaltplantsintown.Andinthelastfouryears,theDistricthas
paidFortMyer$275million.
Flashbackto2003,whennewsreportssaythecompanywasonthevergeofgoingoutofbusiness.Thatsameyear,FortMyer
officialssignedapleaagreementwiththeU.S.AttorneysOfficeandpaid$900,000infinesafteritadmittedthatsomeofits
employeeshadbribedDistrictemployeesandoverbillledthecityduringathreeyearspaninthe90s.Thecitysprocurement
bossdecidedtoblockFortMyerfromreceivinganycitycontractsforthreeyears,butthepunishmentwasultimatelylessened
toaboutayearafterFortMyersuccessfullylobbiedtheD.C.Counciltostepinandundercuttheprocurementofficialspower
topunishcompanies,accordingtonewsreports.
FortMyerofficials,whosaidthepunishmentwastooharshbecauseithadfiredtheemployeesresponsibleandtakenstepsto
preventfurthermisdeeds,paidlobbyistKerryPearson$230,000aspartoftheirefforts,OfficeofCampaignFinancerecords
show.ClosedoesntevenbegintodescribethenatureandextentoftherelationshipbetweenthecouncilandFortMyer,the
WashingtonPosteditorialboardopined.
Indeed,thecompanystopofficialshavebeenconsistentandgenerousdonorstothecityspoliticians.FortMyer,alongwith
thefamiliesofpresidentJoseRodriguesandexecutivevicepresidentLewisShrensky,hasdonatednearly$150,000to
politicalcampaigns,PACsandconstituentservicefundsinthelastdecade.APostanalysisin1998showedthatRodriguesand
ShrenskywereamongthebiggestfinancialbackersofWard2CouncilmemberJackEvanslosingmayoralbid,bundling
togetheracombined$17,000.
KernsdeclinedtocommentonFortMyersanditsofficialspoliticaldonationsorlargerroleinDistrictpolitics.ButLLought
topointoutthatitwouldbeoddforsucharecipientoflargecitycontractsnottoopenitswalletwhenpoliticianscomecalling.
Evans,whonotesheraised$1millionforthatmayorsrace,saystheextentofhisrelationshipwithFortMyerislimitedtothe
occasionalphonecallfromRodrigueswhenhefeelslikethecityisntpayinghiminanappropriatefashion.Evanssayshe
putsRodriguesintouchwithsomeoneattheChiefFinancialOfficersoffice,andthatsthelastIllhearofit.
Courtrecords,though,containallegationsthatthecompanysinfluenceoftengoesdeeperthanaphonecalltotheWilson
Building.InwrittentestimonyunderoathfortheAmoscase,RichardsonsaidthatduringameetingbetweenFortMyer
officialsandFenty,thecompanysrepresentativeswereupsetorconcernedaboutgettingtheirfairshareofthecitys
contracts.RichardsonsaysFentydispatchedhimtoattempttoresolveFortMyersissuesandfollowupwiththefirmlater.
ThecompanysoutsizedimprintinDistrictworkhassometimesmadeDDOTofficialsleeryandcompetitorsupset.FormerCity
AdministratorDanTangherlinionceallegedlysaidinameetingthatwhenheranDDOT,oneofhisgoalswastofindasliver
oftheDistrictsomeothercompanycouldpave,accordingtoaformerWilsonBuildingstaffer.Andoneconstructioncompany,
CheeksofNorthAmerica,recentlysuedFortMyerallegingthecompanywaspartofavastbidriggingschemeinvolvinga
648
2/7
1/24/2016
complicitDistrictgovernment.Afederaljudgemockedthelawsuitandtosseditbeforeitwentanywhere.Butthefactthat
CapitolPaving,anothermajorroadconstructioncompanyintheDistrict,isownedbyRodriguesbrother,FranciscoNeto,
andAnchorConstruction,alsointheroadconstructionbusiness,isownedbyRodriguesexsoninlaw,isgreatfodderforthe
conspiracytypes.TheDistricthaspaidthosetwocompanies$110millioninthelastfouryears,recordsfromtheCFOshow.
ThoseconspiracytypesmayhavemoretomunchonwhenAmosstrialbeginsthisNovember.Amossuggestsincourtfilings
thatseveralhigherupsintheFentyadministrationwerepartofaconspiracytoshieldFortMyerfromscrutiny.LLhasntseen
anyproofofthat,butattheveryleastthecasecouldhelpgiveaclearerpictureofthelinksbetweenpower,politicsandpaving
inthistown.
PhotosbyDarrowMontgomery
GotatipforLL?Sendsuggestionstolips@washingtoncitypaper.com.Orcall(202)6506951.
SHARE
22Comments
LooseLips
Recommend
Share
TWEET
Login
SortbyOldest
Jointhediscussion
HonestAbe 4yearsago
SomehowthissoundslikethesameschemethatSinclairSkinner,OmarKarimandothersconcoctedinordertoobtain
contracts.Createacompany,receivecontracts(probablynobid)inanunfairmanner,outsourcetheworkandmarkupthe
invoicesby5060%andgetpaidfordoingnothing.Iguessit'stheamericanwayandIknowforafactthatthistypeof
activityhasbeengoingonforalongtime.Theywillallreapwhattheysew.
Reply Share
Reader 4yearsago
Goddamnhomophones.
Reply Share
Samantha 4yearsago
FentyTangerliniEvansARECROOKS!GrandJUryTime!!!!
Reply Share
Onethatcares 4yearsago
Man,IwenttoschoolatHowardwithParneyJenkins.HewasagreatguybackthenandworkedwithhimatDistrict
EngineeringServices(myfirstjoboutofCollege)butthatwasover25yearsago.Hopefully,hehasn'tgonetothedark
sideandiscaughtupinthismess.
Reply Share
DCGOVCORRUPTION 4yearsago
ParneyJenkinswasfiredbytheDistrictgovernmentforbeinginvolvedinabriberyscheme,duringthetimethatDanT.
headedtheDDOT.ThisisnosurpriseaboutParneyJenkinsnotperformingthework.HeisknownintheDCcontracting
circleasascamcontractor.
Reply Share
Really? 4yearsago
CosignHonestAbe!
Reply Share
noodlez 4yearsago
DAMNSEWERMANAFTERTHAT1STGAMEANDTHELETDOWNTHATTHEMCOWGIRLSDISPLAYEDIWOULD
THINKTHATYOUWOULDCOMEOUTFIRINGWITHSOMEDIRTONBOWSERSOYOUCANACQUIREMORE
CUPCAKESFORYOURBEAN.BUTTHISHERE????
649
3/7

Part 3 Pages 191 +cheeks V Fort Myer Organized Crime

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Part 3 Pages 191 +cheeks V Fort Myer Organized Crime

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CONTENTS

Exhibit 1 DOJ Guidance Manual Appendix III-Effect of Boyle vs. US on RICO

Exhibit A, Affidavit of Ronald J. Bonfilio, Documents Examiner:

Evidentiary Attachments to Exhibit A

Exhibit A, Attachment 2, Bid Bonds

Exhibit A Attachment 3 Public Documents Used to Create Exhibit F

Exhibit DR 1Civil Construction, LLC 2 year report Principals

Exhibit F, Depiction In Chart Form of RICO Activities. Created by Mr. Bonfilio,

Exhibit K Table II-Criminal Violations by RICO enterprise

Exhibit L Table III Gallardo Sworn Statements-Excerpts

Exhibit O Defendant's Affiliation Matrix

Exhibit V- 1 Ball Joint Damage

Exhibit V-2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 2003

CNA Corporations v Fort Myer Construction Company et al DC Superior Court

Proposed Third Amended Complaint

OTHER RELATED COMPLAINTS FILED BY JOHN CHEEKS

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS AND DOCUMENTS

Leroy Cook WJLA Report and Contact Persons

Death Similar to Cook

Bribery Doc 103-15 Exhibit Docket Gregorio-Sentencing

CNA Financial Corporation

Rodriguez- Shrensky Donations and Associates.

Law Enforcement Associations

Donations to Religious Organizations - Shrensky Foundation

Political Donations and Influence

Anita Bonds, DC Council Member

CNA Financial Corp

Associated Companies: Tessa to be Added

CNA Financial Corp

Bonds: DC Candidate focuses on changing demographics in debate

Anita Bonds pulls in heavy corporate donations -Washington Post Article

Same as the Old Boss? Loose Lips Article, City Paper

Meet an At-Large DC Council Candidate Anita Bonds Washington Post Article by

Fort Myer Construction Will Pay $900k To Settle Discrimination

Firing of Stephen Amos Loose Lips Article

Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 1 of 213

Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 2 of 213

Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 3 of 213

Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 4 of 213

Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 5 of 213

Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 6 of 213

Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 7 of 213

Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 8 of 213

V.IMMEDIATE INJUCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF

SUMMARY OF DAMAGES: DEFENDANTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE.... 207

X. VERIFICATION BY PLAINTIFF ................209

REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JUDGE ............210

XII. ATTACHMENT I LETTER FROM DCDOT CONTRACT AWARDED TO FORT MYER

Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 9 of 213

Fourth Count: Price Fixing ......60

Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 10 of 213

Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 11 of 213

Table 1 RELIEF AMOUNT BY COUNTS October 13, 2010

First Count: Violation of Section 1 of The Sherman Anti-Trust Act

Second Count: Violation of Sherman Anti - Trust Act A By Surety

Third Count: Bid-Rigging; Conspiracy of Restraint of Trade, Section 1 of

Fourth Count: Price Fixing

Fifth Count: Monopoly by Defendant Companies

Sixth Count: Coercive Monopoly; Owners, Directors, Officers of

Seventh Count: Contract Steering.

Eighth Count: Violation of Non-Collusion Affidavit for District of

Ninth Count: Violation of DC Code 28- 4502; Engaging in a Bid-Rigging

Tenth Count Breached Procurement Regulations