S Udge Jugent

Case: 1:11-cr-00437-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/11 1 of 70.
PageID #: 1
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
IN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE, III
SANFORD A. PRUDOFF
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
...
'
S U D G E JUGEN
T
CASE N
Title 18, United States Code

Sections 2, 371, 666, 1001, 1341, 1349,
1512, 1951, 1962(d) and Title 26, United
States Code, Section 7206(1)
The Grand Jury charges:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
At all times material to this Indictment:
The Defendant
1.
Defendant ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE, III, ("CALABRESE") was an attorney
licensed to practice law in the State of Ohio and was an associate and a partner in Law Firm 1.
As an Ohio-licensed attorney, CALABRESE was subject to the rules of ethics set forth in the
Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility, which
along with other provisions of law, ( 1 ) imposed on attorneys a duty of loyalty to clients, (2)
recognized that an attorney has a fiduciary relationship- with clients, (3) forbade an attorney from
using a client's trust to the client's disadvantage, and (4) required that an attorney avoid personal
conflicts of interest that had an adverse effect on the. representation of a client. These rules
included Ohio Rules of Professional Conflict I . 7 and 1.8 and former Ohio Code of Professional
Responsibility sections DR 5-101(A)(1) and DR 5-105.
1
:._
;_
Case: 1:11-cr-00437-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/11 2 of 70. PageID #: 2
2.
Burl wood Holdings, LLC ("Burl wood Holdings") was an LLC formed under the
laws of the State of Ohio on or about August 19, 2004 and controlled by CALABRESE.
3.
Law Firm 1 was an LLP founded in or around 1909. Law Firm 1 maintained
offices in Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio and in other locations throughout the United States.
Law Firm 1 received fees from clients who sought Law Firm 1 ' s services. Law Firm 1 used the
client fees to pay the firm's expenses and to compensate its attorneys, including its partners.
4.
Law Firm 1 conducted periodic appraisals of its attorneys. One factor cnsidered
during the appraisal was the attorney' s ability to obtain and retain clients.
5.
Defendant SANFORD A. PRUDOFF ("PRUDOFF") was employed as the
Community Development Director for the City of Lorain from in or around 1973 until in or
around 2009.
Public Entities
6.
Cuyahoga County, Ohio ("County") was a government body whose departments
included the Cuyahoga County Auditor' s Office ("Auditor's Office") and Cuyahoga County
Engineer' s Office ("Engineer's Office"), each of which was headed by an elected public official.
7.
The Board of Cuyahoga County Commissioners ("County Commissioners") was
the central governmental body of the County, consisting of three co-equal members who were
elected at large for four-year terms. The County Commissioners' powers included budgeting,
levying taxes, issuing bonds, letting contracts for public works services, monitoring expenditures,
administering purchases, and making personnel decisions ..
8.
The County Sanitary Engineer's Office was a division of the Engineer's Office
and was under the authority of the County Commissioners.
9.
of their
The County Commissioners had authority to appropriate funds for the operations
own agencies and other elected County officials, including the County Auditor, County
Engineer, and the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court ("Common Pleas Court").
1 0.
The Parma City School District ("PCSD") was a public school district located
within the County, which served the communities of Parma, Parma Heights and Seven Hills,
Ohio.
Public Officials and Employees
11.
James C. "Jimmy" Dimora ("Dimora") was an elected County Commissioner
from in or around 1 998 until on or about December 31, 20 1 0. His responsibilities included
budgeting, levying taxes, issuing bonds, letting contracts for public works services, monitoring
County expenditures, and administering all purchases for County use.
1 2.
Frank P. Russo ("Russo") was the County Auditor, an elected County official,
from in or around 1 998 until on or about September 9, 20 1 0. He was the County's chief fiscal
officer, with overall responsibility for all County funds. As the Auditor, Russo served as
secretary to the Board of Revision, which had responsibility to rule on property assessments and
hear valuation complaints, and as secretary to the Automatic Data Processing ("ADP") Board,
which reviewed information technology related purchases and contracts for the County. Russo
had the power to influence contracts and expenditures within the Auditor's Office and had
authority over personnel decisions within the Auditor' s Office.
1 3.
John Kevin Kelley ("Kelley") was employed in various positions within County
government from approximately 1 998 through June 2009. In 2004, Kelley became the
Geographic Information Systems ("GIS") project manager. His salary was funded in equal parts
3
by the budgets of the Engineer's Office, the Auditor's Office, and the County Commissioners.
From in or around January 2000 until in or around March 2009, Kelley served on the Parma City
School District Board of Education, an elected position. In both of those roles, Kelley had the
power to influence public policy, contracts and expenditures. In addition to his public
employment, in or around May 2003, Kelley created a consulting business, J. Kevin Kelley
Consulting, LLC. Kelley was the sole employee of J. Kevin Kelley Consulting, LLC.
14.
Kevin F. Payne ("Payne")(now deceased), served as the Chief of Staff at the
Engineer's Office from in or around September 2002 to in or around February 2009. In that
capacity, Payne had the power to influence public policy, contracts and expenditures and to
oversee hiring and promotion in the Engineer' s Office. Payne was also responsible for
administrative matters at the County Sanitary Engineer' s Office. Payne was Kelley's supervisor
at the Engineer' s Office.
Private Entities
1 5.
Alternatives Agency ("AA") was a non-profit organization that provided
treatment and rehabilitation services to post-incarceration indivic:Iuals in criminal cases who had
been ordered to receive such services. The funding AA received from the County was controlled,
in part, by the Cuyahoga County Corrections Planning Board, which fell under the auspices of
the Common Pleas Court. AA was located on East 55th Street in Cleveland, Ohio.
Other Individuals
16.
Daniel P. Gallagher ("Gallagher") was employed in the Engineer's Office until he
retired in 2002. Thereafter, he served as a consultant, eventually forming a consulting company,

The Eagle Group ("Eagle"). Gallagher was the sole agent of Eagle Group.
4
17.
Brian Schuman ("Schuman") was an employee of AA in or around 2002, and
again from in or around 2006 to in or around 2009.

The Grand Jury further charges:
COUNT 1
(18 U .S.C. 1 962(d) RICO Conspiracy)
18.
Paragraphs 1 - 1 7 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth herein.

General Allegations
19.
Business 9 was a construction company specializing in stone and brick masonry
located in Cleveland, Ohio. Business 9 was a client of Law Firm

20.
I.
Business 45 was a company that provided receivership services in state and
federal courts. In 2004, Business 45 was a client of Law Firm 1 .

The Enterprise
21.
At all times material to this Indictment, ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE, III, John
Kevin Kelley and others known and unknown constituted an "Enterprise" as that .term is defined
in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(4 ), in that, they were a group of individuals
associated in fact. The enterprise constituted an ongoing organization whose members
functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the
enterprise. The enterprise engaged in, and its activities affected, interstate commerce.
22.
Defendant ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE, III participated in the operation and
management of the Enterprise.
Purposes of the Conspirators
23.
The purposes of the defendant and other conspirators included the following:
A.
Using the power and authority of public officials for the personal and
financial benefit of CALABRESE, his co-conspirators, and his designees.

B.
Using the power and influence CALABRESE had as an attorney over his
clients and the clients of Law Firm 1 for the personal and financial benefit of CALABRESE, his
co-conspirators and his designees.
C.
To promote, conceal and otherwise protect purposes (A) and (B) of the
conspirators from public exposure and possible criminal prosecution.

The Racketeering Conspiracy
24.
Beginning in or around 200 1 and continuing to on or about February 2, 2009, the
exact dates unknown to the Grand Jury, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and
elsewhere, Defendant ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE, III, and John Kevin Kelley (not charged
herein) and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, being persons associated with an
enterprise engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate commerce, namely, the
Enterprise, did knowingly and intentionally conspire with each other and others known and
unknown to the Grand Jury to violate Title 1 8, United States Code, Section 1 962( c), that is, to
conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the Enterprise
through a pattern of racketeering activity involving multiple acts indictable under the following
provisions of federal law:
A.
1 8 U.S.C. 1 34 1 and 1 346 (Mail Fraud and Honest Services Mail Fraud);
B.
18 U . S.C. 1 95 1 (Hobbs Act Extortion); and

6
C.
1 8 U.S.C. 1 5 1 2 (Obstruction of Justice)
and multiple acts involving bribery chargeable under Ohio Revised Code Section 292 1 .02.
25.
It was part of the conspiracy that CALABRESE, Kelley and other conspirators
agreed that a conspirator would commit at least two acts of racketeering in conducting the affairs
of the Enterprise.
Means and Methods of the Enterprise
Among the means and methods by which the defendant and his associates agreed to
conduct and participate in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise were the following:
26.
CALABRESE gave and offered to give things of value to public officials and their
designees in return and in exchange for the public officials taking and promising to take official
action that benefitted CALABRESE, Law Firm 1 , their clients and designees.
27.
CALABRESE did corrupt and sought to corrupt public officials and improperly
influence public officials with respect to the discharge of their official duties, by promising,
offering and giving things of value to public officials and their designees.
28.
Kelley and other public officials solicited and accepted from CALABRESE and
others things of value in return and in exchange for Kelley and other public officials taking,
promising to take, influencing and attempting to influence official action that benefitted
CALABRESE, Law Firm 1 , their clients and designees.
29.
Kelley and other public officials used and agreed to use the powers of their public
offices to influence and attempt to influence private companies seeking or having public
business.
30.
CALABRESE used and agreed to use his position of trust as an attorney to
influence clients' decisions to benefit Law Firm 1, CALABRESE, and CALABRESE's

designees.
3 1.
At times, CALABRESE served as an intermediary between a public official and
his clients with respect to giving and offering to give a thing of value to the public official.
32.
CALABRESE used and caused to be used Law Firm 1 ' s resources for his personal
benefit and the benefit of his conspirators and designees.

33.
CALABRESE and his conspirators used and caused to be used the United States
mail to send and deliver mail matter to advance the purposes of the racketeering activity.
34.
The conspirators took steps to avoid detection, including using conduits and
intermediaries, speaking in code, making bribe payments in cash, and establishing shell
companies.
35.
CALABRESE, Kelley, and other members of the conspiracy committed and
attempted to commit various acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, including the following:
A.
Schemes Related to Factual Allegations in this Indictment
36.
The facts more fully described, and incorporated herein, in the factual allegations
of Counts 2- 1 4 of this Indictment.

B.
Alternatives Agency Property Tax Rebate Scheme
In furtherance of this scheme:

37.
CALABRESE used his position as an attorney at Law Firm 1 to assist AA with
obtaining property tax exempt status for the property AA leased.
38.
In or around January 2004, CALABRESE asked Kelley if Kelley could assist in
AA obtaining tax exempt status on the property that AA leased.

39.
Kelley agreed to assist AA in navigating the process through the Auditor' s Office
relating to AA' s property taxes.

40.
Kelley agreed to assist AA in its appeal to the State of Ohio relating to AA' s
property taxes.
41 .
On or about July 1 5 , 2004, CALABRESE caused to be delivered via United States
mail to AA in Cleveland, Ohio, correspondence from the Ohio Department of Taxation,

providing notice that the Department of Taxation had vacated its previous determination relating
to AA' s property tax request.
42.
On or about September 3 , 2004, CALABRESE caused to be delivered by the
United States mail, to AA in Cleveland, Ohio, correspondence from the Ohio Department of
Taxation, providing notice that the real property parcel numbers 1 04-29-004 and 1 04-20-0 1 0
were exempt from taxation, and further ordering that all taxes, penalties and interest paid for the
tax years 2002-2003 be remitted in the manner provided by law.
43.
On or about September 20, 2004, Kelley collected the refund check issued to AA
valued at approximately $ 1 44,216.26, and CALABRESE drove Kelley to AA' s office with the
check.
44.
On or about September 20, 2004, Kelley gave the refund check to an agent of AA.
45.
On or about September 20, 2004, AA caused to be deposited the refund check.
46.
On or about September 20, 2004, CALABRESE instructed BE39 to issue an AA
check payable to Business 45 in the amount of approximately $72,000. CALABRESE told BE39
9
that he should classify the expense as consulting, despite CALABRESE knowing that Business
45 performed no consulting services for AA to justify that expense.
4 7.
On or about September 20, 2004, CALABRESE caused AA to issue check no.
1 1 248, drawn on its financial account, payable to Business 45, for approximately $72,000.
48.
On or about September 20, 2004, CALABRESE and Kelley delivered the AA
check issued to Business 45 to an agent of Business 45 .

49.
On or about September 20, 2004, Business 45 issued check no. 1 1 37 drawn on its
financial account, payable to ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE,

50.
Ill,
for approximately $3 1 ,500.
On or about September 20, 2004, Business 45 issued check no. 1 1 38 drawn on its
financial account, payable to J. Kevin Kelley Consulting, LLC for approximately $3 5,500.
51.
On or about September 20, 2004, Kelley caused to be negotiated the $3 5,500
check from Business 45 into a financial account of J. Kevin Kelley Consulting LLC.
52.
On or about September 2 1 , 2004, CALABRESE caused to be negotiated the
$3 1 ,500 check from Business 45 .

53 .
On or about September 2 1 , 2004, Business 45 caused to be deposited the $72,000
check from AA into Business 45 ' s financial account.

54.
Business 45 kept the $5 ,000 remaining from the $72,000 check from AA.
Business 9 and Parma City School District Scheme
It was part of the scheme that:

55.
I n o r about early 2005, CALABRESE lobbied Kelley and other members o f the
Parma School Board to contract with Business 9 to serve as a project manager for a renovation
project.
10
56.
In or around he Summer of 2005, the Parma S chool Board, with Kelley voting in
favor, awarded a contract to Business 9 valued at approximately $ 1 .8 million.

57.
Business 9' s contract contained an agreement that the PCSD would reimburse
Business 9 for advertising and public relations for a recently passed levy.
58.
CALABRESE and Kelley arranged for Business 9 to hire Eagle, ostensibly to
perform the public relations portion of the construction management contract.

59.
In or around August 2005, Business 9 received a payment from the PCSD on the
construction management contract.

60.
Business 9 and Eagle sent and delivered items through the United States mail
related to a $ 1 5,000 payment from Business 9 to Eagle.

61.
On or about August 1 0, 2005, Business 9 sent a $ 1 5,000 check to Eagle, which
Gallagher caused to be negotiated.

62.
Gallagher distributed a portion of the $ 1 5,000 to Payne and Kelley.
63.
On or about September 8, 2005, Gallagher wrote a $2,500 check drawn on the
Eagle bank account to a third party vendor for preliminary design work for public relations
materials for the PCSD.
All in violation of Title 1 8, United States Code, Section 1 962(d).
The Grand Jury further charges :
COUNT 2
(Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud and Honest Services Mail Fraud,
1 8 U.S.C. 1 34 1 and 1 346, in violation of 1 8 U.S.C. 1 349)
64.
Paragraphs I , 6, 7, 9, 11-13 , 15 and 17 of this Indictment are re-alleged and
incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

11
65.
Public Employee 1 1 ("PE I I ") was a County employee who reported to Dimora.
66.
Public Employee 1 3 ("PE 1 3") was an employee of the County Commissioners'
Office with management and policy responsibilities.

67.
Public Employee 23 ("PE23") was appointed by the County Commissioners as the
County's chief operating officer. PE23 served in that role until in or around July 2008.
68.
Public Employee 5 5 ("PE55") was Russo's domestic partner.

THE CONSPIRACY
69.
From in or around November 2007 through on or about January 20, 2009, the
exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division
and elsewhere, Defendant ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE, III, and James C. Dimora (not charged
herein), Frank P. Russo (not charged herein), John Kevin Kelley (not charged herein), Brian
Schuman (not charged herein), and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, did knowingly
and intentionally combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other to commit offenses
against the United States; that is, to knowingly devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice:
( 1 ) to defraud and deprive Cuyahoga County and its citizens of their right to the honest
and faithful services of Dimora, through bribery and kickbacks and the concealment of
material information related thereto, and
(2) to defraud Cuyahoga County and to obtain money and property by means of materially
false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises,
and for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, to cause matters to be placed in any
post office and authorized depository for mail matter to be sent and delivered by the United
12
States Postal Service and private and commercial interstate carrier, in violation of Title 1 8,
United States Code, Sections 1 34 1 and 1 346.
OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY
70.
It was the object of the conspiracy that Dimora, with Russo's assistance, secretly
used his official position to enrich himself, Russo, and their designees by soliciting and accepting
gifts, payments, and other things of value from AA, in exchange for favorable official action, and
that AA, through CALABRESE, Kelley and Schuman, enriched itself by secretly obtaining
favorable official action for itself through corrupt means.
MANNER AND MEANS
It was part of the conspiracy that:
71.
Dimora and Russo solicited and accepted gifts, payments, and other things of
value from AA, including meals and travel from Cleveland to Las Vegas for Dimora, Russo and
PE55.
72.
Dimora, with Russo's assistance, provided favorable official action for the benefit
of AA both as requested andas future opportunities arose.

73 .
The conspirators took steps to hide, conceal, and cover up their activity and the
nature and scope of AA' s dealings with Dim ora.

Acts in furtherance of the conspiracy
74.
In or around November 2007, after County Probation Department officials told
Schuman that the County intended to eliminate its contract with AA for 2008, Schuman and
CALABRESE asked Kelley to help restore AA's funding.
13
75 .
Kelley asked Russo and Dimora to assist in restoring AA' s funding and in
obtaining additional funding.

76.
Kelley received money from AA for his role in obtaining Russo's and Dimora's
assistance.
77.
In or around December 2007, Russo and Dim ora each talked to other public
employees with responsibility and influence over the funding.

78.
On or about December 2 1 , 2007 at approximately 1 2: 4 1 p.m., Kelley informed
CALABRESE e had good news regarding AA. Kelley indicated that PE13 told Russo that the
County was re-working the budget, and AA would be back in the budget. Kelley then instructed
CALABRESE to call and thank Russo. CALABRESE agreed and said, "You and I need to get
together on this too, you know what I mean."
79.
On or about December 2 1 , 2007 at approximately 1 :08 p.m., Kelley told Schuman
that a County employee called Russo and Dimora, telling them that a funding mechanism was in
place to reinstate AA in the County budget. Kelley said that Russo was not given an exact
number, but PE13 told Russo things "look good" for AA. Kelley emphasized the importance of
AA receiving a budget allocation, because after the budget was in place, Dimora and Russo could
influence other County employees to increase AA's allocation after the Health and Human
Services levy passed.
80.
On or about January 4, 2008, Schuman asked Kelley if there were any
developments. Kelley said he received a verbal commitment that AA was allocated $400,000
towards 2008, and they were waiting for the paperwork. Schuman replied, "That's f---ing
beautiful ." Kelley explained that there would be two County funding sources, and the County
14
might make up the difference through the halfway house initiative. Kelley told Schuman that
Dimora had informed Kelley to keep the billing up until the budget allocation was spent, and
then Dimora would find more money once the Health and Human Services levy passed. Kelley
said that AA might actually receive more money than it had the prior year. Again, Schuman
responded, "That's f---ing beautiful." Kelley told Schuman that Kelley heard about the funding
decision from Russo. Kelley ended the conversation by commenting that he always tells people,
"Loyalty makes up for brains any day."
81.
On or about January 1 1 , 2008, Kelley told CALABRESE that AA was allocated
$250,000 because AA had only used $500,000 the previous year even though it was budgeted for
$600,000. Kelley and CALABRESE agreed it would be easier for the County to amend and add
money in the future, once AA was included in the budget. Kelley said that he was on his way to
AA because Kelley just had a meeting with Russo, who was "very clear on what his thoughts
were." CALABRESE replied, "Understood." CALABRESE and Kelley agreed to meet the
following Monday. Kelley then stated, "I'm just gonna, you know, ah, be coy about it with these
guys, but they gotta, you know, it's one thing to hold me back a couple, you know."
CALABRESE replied, "I understand," and inquired whether "the two boys on 55 [referring to
AA located on E. 55'h Street]" would know about it before Kelley and he met. Kelley said he
was on his way to meet with them.
82.
On or about January 1 6, 2008, Schuman asked Kelley, "How did everything go on
Thursday? Did they sign their budget?" Kelley responded, "No they didn't, but it doesn't
matter." Kelley continued, HYou' re in the thing, so it' s just, but it's not official until they
approve it." Kelley added, "But, you know, they're not gonna pull it out." Schuman asked if
15
"they're the only one that can do anything with it." Kelley responded, "The only one that can
take it out is the Commissioners." Schuman replied, "Okay, good." Kelley continued, "And
we've got two of them on our side on the issue."
83 .
In or around January 2008, CALABRESE instructed Schuman to increase
Kelley's monthly fee by $2,000 for four months for the purpose of funding expenses associated
with a Las Vegas trip for Dimora, Russo and PESS .
84.
Schuman concealed the bribe payment from others at AA by recording the $2,000
increase in AA' s books as an increase in Kelley's monthly consulting fee.

85 .
On or about February 1 3, 2008, Schuman, another AA employee, and Kelley met
for lunch at Delmonico's restaurant in Independence, Ohio. During that meal, Dimora called
Kelley, and Kelley said that he was having lunch with Schuman and another AA employee.
Kelley said, "Yeah, that thing's on your agenda tomorrow for their money." Dimora asked,
"Yeah, give them more, you mean, or take it away?" Kelley responded, "No to give 'em back
some of their, what you stole from them." Dimora laughed and said, "I don't wanna know what
you get out of this, I don't even wanna f--ing know." Kelley replied, "I get nothing out of this,"
to which Dimora responded, "I don't even wanna know. . . . The less I know the better." Kelley
responded, "Really. The less you know the better is right." Kelley added, "Speaking of that . . .
ah, Vegas." Kelley and Dimora then discussed reservations for their upcoming trip to Las Vegas.
86.
On or about February 1 4, 2008, the County Commissioners, with Dimora voting
in favor, approved a $250,000 allocation for Residential Facilities for the Work Release Program
for the period May 1 , 2008 through December 3 1, 2008, and authorized the Office of
Procurement
&
Diversity to advertise for bids.

16
87.
On or about February 22, 2008, Schuman told Kelley that another halfway house
met with PE 1 3 regarding the Sherifr s line item. PE 1 3 was going to meet with another County
employee, who would take it to Dimora. Schuman asked Kelley to schedule a meeting with the
other halfway house and Dimora to discuss the idea. Schuman said, "They know we got the
juice, now let's just f-in' shove it down their face."
88.
On or about March 6, 2008, Kelley and Dimora discussed the meeting with AA
and the other halfway house.

89.
On or about March 6, 2008, Dimora met Kelley, Schuman and others for dinner at
Delmonico' s restaurant and discussed public funding for AA .

90.
On or about March 20, 2008, Kelley and Schuman discussed a recent meeting that
Dimora had with County court officials to promote AA. Schuman told Kelley it went well,
explaining Dimora had everyone in the room. Schuman, as Kelley predicted, "didn't say two
words. Dimora took the lead on the meeting," talking about what he thought and why it was a
good idea. Schuman said the other halfway houses know we have the "f--ing juice. We got him
in the room."
91 .
On or about March 25, 2008, Dimora and PE23 discussed the halfway house
initiative and the upcoming judges' meeting. Dimora said, "I ' ll go and tell 'em judges . . . my
colleagues agree about saving money and, ya know, basically we j ust gotta convince these judges
if there' s some that are skeptical that it's safe to house prisoners there. That they don't have to
worry about 'em escaping." Dimora continued, "So I just wanna make sure we don't let the thing
fall through the cracks that we follow up and get . . . the meeting date when they're gonna have
17
the judges together, that's what [POlS] said . . . I'll have you guys come and those halfway
house people come to talk to the judges."
92.
Kelley used the additional funds he received from AA to purchase first class
airfare aboard Continental Airlines for Russo, PE55, and Dimora, at a cost of approximately
$ 1 ,268.50 per ticket.
93 .
On or about April 2, 2008, Dimora and Kelley discussed the flight arrangements
for the Las Vegas trip. Dimora asked Kelley, "How much is that ticket? Frank [Russo] and I,
'cause I don't want to have no headaches with the tickets." Kelley replied, "Ok, I'll talk to, to
you tonight." Dimora replied, "I'll have to bring a check with me, ya hear?'' Kelley replied,
"Yeah, I hear you one hundred percent, and I'll take care of that, ok?" Dimora replied, "Alright,
alright." Kelley stated, '"Cause, ah, you know, you know what I
am
sayin' ." Dimora replied,
"We' ll talk about it."

94.
Dimora and Russo each gave Kelley a check to cover the cost of the airline ticket.
Russo's check did not include payment for PE5 5's ticket. Upon receiving the checks from Russo
and Dimora, Kelley gave them back cash in the approximate amount of the check each had given
to Kelley.
95.
On or about April 6, 2008, Kelley telephoned Schuman and said, "Hey, we're
heading out now [on the Las Vegas trip] . The guys [Dimora and Russo] wanted me to call and
thank you." Schuman replied, "Oh, I hope everybody has a good time."
96.
On or about April 6, 2008, Kelley, Dimora, Russo, and PE55 boarded a
Continental Airlines flight from Cleveland to Las Vegas.
18
97.
On or about April 7, 2008 at approximately 7:56 a.m., Kelley, while in Las Vegas,
had a conversation with his wife about what he and the others were doing in Las Vegas. .Kelley
also explained how Ferris Kleem was paying for everything in Las Vegas, including the hotel
rooms, for Dimora and Russo. Kelley described to his wife how Kleem' s presence in Las Vegas
being there was a benefit to him because Kelley was expected to pay for the hotel rooms for
Dimora and Russo with the extra money he had been given by Alternative Agency.
98.
On or about April 9, 2008, Schuman asked Kelley if he was back in town. Kelley
confirmed he flew from Las Vegas on "the red eye" the previous night. Schuman then said,
"Come on down to the Agency tomorrow. I got the rest of your money." Kelley replied, "Oh
beautiful. I appreciate it sir."
99.
On or about April 1 4, 2008, Kelley and Schuman discussed the Las Vegas trip.
Schuman then confirmed that Kelley had picked up his check from AA and inquired, "We're all
square right?" Kelley explained that one month remained at the increased rate before returning
to the regular rate.
1 00.
On or about Aprill4, 2008, Dimora told PE1 1 that he wanted to know when the
meeting about the halfway houses, which was originally scheduled for April 8 but was canceled,
was taking place. Dimora told PE 1 1 he wanted to put the new date on his (Dimora' s) schedule
'"cause I wanted to go to it . . . and this way I can pass it on to those halfway house people."
Dimora said a judge arranged the meeting through another County employee and, "I don't want
to miss it."
19
I 0 I.
On or about April 1 7, 2008, the County Commissioners, with Dimora voting in
favor, approved a $250,000 contract with AA for residential facilities for the work release
program.
I 02.
On or about April 22, 2008, Schuman and Kelley discussed AA receiving the
County contract.
I 03 .
On or about May 1 2, 2008, PE23 told Dim ora that the meeting with the halfway
houses at:id the Court was scheduled the following day at 1 2:30. Dimora explained that he will
say that the judges were overlooking halfway houses as an alternative to jail.
1 04.
On or about May 1 3, 2008, Kelley told Schuman that they were confirmed for
Thursday at Delmonico 's restaurant. Kelley wanted to start working on the Sheriffs line item
and suggested that they discuss it Thursday. Kelley told Schuman that he would pick up his
consulting check from AA so that he could pay for Thursday' s dinner.
EXECUTION OF THE SCHEME
I 05 .
On or about the dates listed below, in the Northern District of Ohio and elsewhere,
Dimora, Russo, Kelley, Schuman, CALABRESE and others, for the purpose of executing the
above-described scheme and artifice, caused documents to be delivered and sent through the
United States mail, including invoices from AA in Cleveland, Ohio, to the County in Cleveland,
Ohio, and payments from the County to AA in satisfaction of those invoices, including the
following:
20
Date
Description
Approximate Amount
May 1 9, 2008
Check from the County in

Cleveland, OH, to AA in
Cleveland, OH, for April
2008 Work Release
$4,705 .30
June 1 9, 2008

Cleveland, OH, for May 2008
Work Release
$ 1 5,78 1 .29
July 1 7, 2008

Cleveland, OH, for June 2008
Work Release
$24, 1 1 3 .56
August 1 4, 2008

Cleveland, OH, for July 2008
Work Release
$28,593 .44
September 25 , 2008

Cleveland, OH, for August
2008 Work Release
$39,8 1 3 .97
October 27, 2008

Cleveland, OH, for
September 2008 Work
Release
$47,974. 1 7
November 20, 2008

Cleveland, OH, for October
2008 Work Release
$49,3 82.63
December 1 5 , 2008

Cleveland, OH, for
November 2008 Work
Release
$41 ,555. 1 4
21

Cleveland, OH, for December
2008 Work Release
January 20, 2009
$2,785 .80
All in violation of Title 1 8, United States Code, Section 1 349.

COUNT 3
(Hobbs Act Conspiracy, 1 8 U.S.C. 1 95 1 and 2)
1 06.
Paragraphs 1 , 6, 7, 9, 1 1 - 1 3, 1 5, 1 7, and 71 of this Indictment are re-alleged and

At all times relevant to this Count of the Indictment:
I 07.
The operations of the County and the Common Pleas Court affected interstate
commerce.
1 08 .
The operations o f AA affected interstate commerce.

CONSPIRACY
1 09.
Beginning in or around November 2007 and continuing until in or around May
2008, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division and elsewhere., Defendant ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE, III, and James C. Dimora (not
charged herein), Frank P. Russo (not charged herein), John Kevin Kelley (not charged herein),
Brian Schuman (not charged herein) and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, did
knowingly and intentionally combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other to
obstruct, delay and affect commerce and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce
by extortion; that is, Dimora obtained property not due to him or his office, namely, travel from
22
Cleveland, Ohio, to Las Vegas, Nevada, for Dimora, Russo, and PE55, and a Delmonico' s
restaurant dinner party valued at approximately $826, from AA, with its consent, under color of
official right.
All in violation of Title 1 8, United States Code, Sections 1 95 1 and 2.
COUNT 4
(Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds, 1 8 U . S.C. 666(a)(2) and 2)
1 1 0.
Paragraphs I, 6, 7, 9, 1 1 - 1 3, 1 5 and 1 7 of this Indictment are re-alleged and

1 1 1.
At all times relevant, the County was a government agency as that term is defined
in Title 1 8, United States Code, Section 666( d)(2). The County received benefits in excess of
$ 1 0,000 during the one year period November 1 , 2007 through October 3 1 , 2008, under a Federal
program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance and other form of
Federal assistance.
1 1 2.
Dimora and Russo were agents of the County as defined in Title 1 8, Section
666(d)( 1 ), United States Code.

The Scheme
1 1 3.
Beginning i n o r around November 2007 and continuing until i n or around May
Division .and elsewhere, Defendant ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE, III and John Kevin Kelley
(not charged herein), Brian Schuman (not charged herein), Alternatives Agency (not charged
herein), and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, aiding and abetting one another, did
23
corruptly give, offer, and agree to give anything of value to any person, with intent to influence
and reward County Commissioner James C. Dimora (not charged herein) and Frank P. Russo
(not charged herein), both agents of the County, in connection with any business, transaction and
series of transactions of the County involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more; namely,
County funding valued at approximately $250,000 for AA.
All in violation of Title 1 8, United States Code, Sections 666(a)(2) and 2.
COUNT S
(Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud, 1 8 U.S.C. 1 34 1 , in violation of 1 8 U.S.C. 1 349)
1 1 4.
Paragraphs 1 -5, 1 3 , 1 5 and 17 of this Indictment are realleged and fully
incorporated herein.
1 1 5.
AA was governed by a Board o f Directors.
1 1 6.
The Board of Directors for AA retained CALABRESE and Law Firm 1 as its legal
counsel.
1 1 7.
Business Executive or Employee 39 ("BE39") was an employee of AA until in or
around 2006.
1 1 8.
A.C. Sinagra and Associates was a lobbying and consulting company formed by
Anthony C. Sinagra in or around January of 1 995.

1 1 9.
Anthony C. Sinagra was a principal of A.C. Sinagra and Associates. Before
forming the company, inagra served as the Mayor of Lakewood, Ohio and as a member of The
Ohio Senate. Sinagra was also a partner in the law firm A. C. Sinagra & Company, LPA.
1 20.
Relative I was CALABRESE's relative and the registered agent for Business 43 .
24
121.
Relative 2 was related to PRUDOFF' s girlfriend.

THE CONSPIRACY
1 22.
From in or about January 2002, and continuing through on or about August 4,
Division, Defendants ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE, III, and SANFORD A. PRUDOFF, and
John Kevin Kelley (not charged herein), Anthony Sinagra (not charged herein), and others known
and unknown to the Grand Jury, did knowingly and intentionally combine, conspire, confederate
and agree with each other to commit an offense against the United States, namely, to devise and
intend to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud AA of money and property and to obtain money
and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises,
States Postal Service, in violation of Title 1 8, United States Code, Section 1 34 1 .
OBJECTS OF THE CONSPIRACY
1 23 .
It was an object o f the conspiracy that CALABRESE abused his position and
professional relationship with AA by influencing AA to hire and retain consultants at high fees,
which consultants would in tum use those funds to benefit CALABRESE and his designees on
matters unrelated to AA.
1 24.
It was a further object of the conspiracy that CALABRESE and others concealed
and attempted to conceal the identities of the ultimate recipients of AA' s funds.
25
MANNER AND MEANS

1 25.
CALABRESE influenced AA in hiring consultants for the purported benefit of
1 26.
CALABRESE influenced AA in establishing the consultants' fees.
1 27.
CALABRESE knew that the consultants performed little, if any, actual work for
AA.
AA, yet continued to influence AA to retain the consultants.

1 28.
CALABRESE made material misrepresentations to AA about the work performed
by the consultants.
1 29.
CALABRESE concealed and attempted to conceal from certain members of the
AA' s Board of Directors the number of consultants retained.

1 30.
CALABRESE concealed and attempted to conceal from certain members of AA' s
Board o f Directors the fact that the consultants performed little, i f any, actual work for AA.
131.
CALABRESE concealed and attempted to conceal from certain members of AA' s
Board of Directors the fact that CALABRESE and his designees received a personal benefit from
the consultants.
1 32.
One effect of the conspiracy was that AA had fewer resources with which to serve
its clients.
Acts in furtherance of the conspiracy primarily related to PRUDOFF and AA
1 33.
In or around 2003 , PRUDOFF began receiving payments from AA on an
approximately monthly basis, purportedly for consulting work.
26
I 34.
When BE39 informed CALABRESE that AA had received no work product from
PRUDOFF, CALABRESE told BE3 9 that PRUDOFF was consulting on a Lorain expansion
project. BE39 questioned why AA was paying PRUDOFF, since he was the Community
Development Director for Lorain and it would be within his job requirements to assist companies
such as AA, who were interested in developing facilities in Lorain. CALABRESE insisted that
BE39 continue to cause AA to pay PRUDOFF.
I 3 5.
CALABRESE did not inform the AA Board about payments for consultants on a
Lorain expansion project and the Board did not approve payments to any such consultant.
1 3 6.
In or around June 2005, CALABRESE told BE39 that PRUDOFF had some
issues arise and that BE39 should issue PRUDOFF's monthly payments to Relative 2.
1 37.
In or around July 2005, CALABRESE and PRUDOFF assisted Relative 2 in
forming Business 46.

1 3 8.
On or about July I 8, 2005, CALABRESE caused to be drafted a letter to
PRUDOFF, enclosing two sets of the agreement with AA to return for BE3 9's counter execution
and instructing PRUDOFF to have Relative 2 process paperwork to form Business 46.
1 39.
On or about July 25, 2005, AA began issuing checks to Business 46 for
approximately $4,000, on an approximately monthly basis, which continued until on or about

March 24, 2006.
1 40.
On or about August 1, 2005, AA entered into an Independent Contractor
Agreement with Business 46, establishing a fee of approximately $4,000 per month.
27
141 .
PRUDOFF provided favorable consideration to CALABRESE and his designees
on business matters unrelated to AA in return and in exchange for the consulting fees that
,
CALABRESE caused PRUDOFF and Business 46 to receive from AA.

1 42.
Neither CALABRESE, nor PRUDOFF, nor Relative 2 disclosed to AA the fact
that PRUDOFF provided such favorable consideration to CALABRESE on non-AA matters.

1 43 .
Neither CALABRESE, nor PRUDOFF, nor Relative 2 disclosed to AA the fact
that PRUDOFF and Relative 2 performed little to no work to j ustify the fees paid by AA
Acts in furtherance of the conspiracy primarily related to Business 43 and AA

1 44.
On or about March 3 1 , 2005, Business 43 was incorporated in the State of Ohio.
1 45.
On or about March 3 1 , 2005, CALABRESE influenced AA to engage Business
43 's services.
1 46.
On or about March 3 1 , 2005 , CALABRESE instructed BE39 to make a $950
check payable on the first of each month to Business 43 , in Brecksville, Ohio. CALABRESE
informed BE39 that an invoice for April would be forthcoming.
1 47.
On or about March 3 1 , 2005, AA received an invoice from Business 43 for
approximately $950 for purported consulting and marketing services performed in March 2005 .
1 48.
On or about March 3 1 , 2005, AA sent a check to Business 43 for approximately
$950 as payment on the March 3 1 , 2005 invoice.

1 49.
On or about April 2 1 , 2005, AA received an invoice from Business 43 for $950
for purported consulting and marketing services performed in April 2005.

I 50.
On
or about April 28, 2005, AA sent a check to Business 43 for approximately
$950 as payment on the invoiced AA received on April 2 1 , 2005 .

28
151.
On or about March 24, 2006, AA sent a check to Business 43 for approximately
$ 1 , 1 50, which was the last payment made directly from AA to Business 43 .
1 52.
CALABRESE concealed from AA his relative' s relationship to Business 43 .
1 53 .
Neither CALABRESE, nor Relative
disclosed to AA that Relative 1 performed
little to no work for AA to justify the fees paid.

Acts in furtherance of the conspiracy primarily related to Sinagra and AA
1 54.
In or around January 2002, CALABRESE influenced AA to hire A.C. Sinagra and
Associates.
1 55 .
O n or about January 1 , 2006, A.C. Sinagra and Associates and AA entered into a
contract setting a monthly consulting fee at approximately $ 1 ,500.

1 56.
In or around March 2006, CALABRESE and Sinagra agreed that CALABRESE
would cause AA to increase its payments to A. C. Sinagra and Associates, and Sinagra would use
the additional funds to pay persons or entities identified by CALABRESE in the amounts
CALABRESE designated.
1 57.
CALABRESE first suggested that Sinagra make consulting payments to Relative
1 , through Business 43 . When Sinagra asked to meet Relative 1 , CALABRESE asked Sinagra to
pay CALABRESE through Burlwood Holdings, instead. CALABRESE also asked Sinagra to
pay Relative 2. Sinagra agreed to both requests.
1 5 8.
Sinagra performed no legitimate work for AA to j ustify the increase in Sinagra's
I 59.
Neither CALABRESE nor Sinagra disclosed to AA that Sinagra performed no
fee.
legitimate work for AA to justify the increase in Sinagra's fee.

29
1 60.
On or about April 28, 2006, A. C. Sinagra and Associates issued an invoice to AA
for $6,000.
161.
On or about May 4, 2006, AA sent a check to A.C. S inagra and Associates in the
amount of approximately $6,000, for payment on the April 28, 2006 invoice.
1 62.
On or about May 1 2, 2006, Sinagra caused to be sent a letter to CALABRESE
enclosing two signed copies of a contract between AC Sinagra and Associates and AA, which
increased A. C. Sinagra and Associates' s monthly fees from approximately $ 1 ,500 to
approximately $6,000.
1 63 .
On o r about May 1 2, 2006, A.C. Sinagra Company, LPA issued a check for
approximately $2,000 to Relative 2, which was sent via United States mail.
1 64.
On or about May 22, 2006, A.C. Sinagra Company LPA issued a check for
approximately $2,000 to Berlwood (sic) Holdings, which CALABRESE caused to be negotiated.

1 65.
On or about May 30, 2006, A. C. Sinagra and Associates issued an invoice to AA
for $6,000.
1 66.
On or about June 1 6, 2006, AA issued a check to A.C . Sinagra and Associates in
the amount of approximately $6,000, for payment on the May invoice.

1 67.
On or about June 20, 2006, A.C. Sinagra Company LPA issued a check for

1 68 .
O n o r about June 20, 2006, A.C. Sinagra Company, LPA issued a check for
169.
On or about June 26, 2006, A. C. Sinagra and Associates issued an invoice to AA
for $6,000.
30
1 70.
On or about July 6, 2006, AA issued a check to A.C. Sinagra and Associates in
the amount of approximately $ 6,000, for payment on the June invoice.

171.
On or about July 7, 2006, A.C. Sinagra Company LPA issued a check for
approximately $ 2,000 to Berlwood (sic) Holdings, which CALABRESE caused to be negotiated.

1 72.
On or about July 7, 2006, A.C. Sinagra Company, LPA issued a check for
approximately $2,000 to Relative 2 which was sent via United States mail.
1 73 .
On or about July 2 1 , 2006, A.C. Sinagra and Associates issued an invoice to AA
for $ 6,000.
1 74.
On or about August 1 6, 2006, AA issued a check to A. C. Sinagra and Associates
in the amount of approximately $6,000, for payment on the July invoice.

1 75.
On or about August 23, 2006, A.C. Sinagra Company LPA issued a check for
approximately $ 2,000 to Berlwood (sic) Holings, which CALABRESE caused to be negotiated.

1 76.
On or about August 23, 2006, A. C. Sinagra Company, LPA issued a check for
approximately $ 2,000 to Relative 2, which was sent via United States mail.
1 77.
On or about August 25 , 2006 and on or about September 29, 2006, A.C. Sinagra
and Associates issued an invoice to AA for $6,000 each.

178.
On or about October 24, 2006, A. C. Sinagra and Associates received three checks
from AA for approximately $6,000 each, as payment on previously issued invoices. Two checks
were dated on or about October 20, 2006 and the third check was dated on or about October 23,
2006.
179.
On or about October 27, 2006, A.C. Sinagra Company LPA issued
check for
approximately $ 8,000 to Berlwood (sic) Holdings, which CALABRESE caused to be negotiated.

31
1 80.
On or about November 1 0, 2006, A.C. Sinagra Company LPA issued a check for
approximately $4,000 to Burlwood Holdings, which CALABRESE caused to be negotiated.

181.
Neither Burlwood, nor Relative 2 performed work for A.C. Sinagra and
Associates or A.C. Sinagra Company LPA.

1 82.
Neither CALABRESE nor Sinagra disclosed to AA that. Sinagra, through, A.C.
Sinagra Company LPA, made payments to Berlwood (sic) and Relative 2.

1 83 .
In or around 2006, Kelley told CALABRESE that Kelley had received complaints
from AA employees about consulting payments that AA was making to Sinagra and the fact that
Sinagra' s work did not j ustify the amount of monthly consulting fees paid to S inagra.
CALABRESE instructed Kelley to speak favorably of Sinagra to these AA employees,
explaining to Kelley that Sinagra was paying a portion of his monthly consulting fee to
Relative 1 .
Acts in furtherance of the conspiracy primarily related to Kelley and AA
1 84 .
I n o r about October 2004, CALABRESE influenced A A t o hire J. Kevin Kelley
Consulting as a consultant and paid it a monthly fee of approximately $900 per month plus
expenses.
1 85.
In or around August 2005, CALABRESE told Kelley to increase his monthly fee
to approximately $4,900.
1 86.
CALABRESE instructed Kelley to include on the invoice to AA that Kelley had
performed work for AA in Lorain.

1 87.
Kelley performed no work for AA i n Lorain.
32
1 88.
In August of 2005 , CALABRESE caused AA to increase J. Kevin Kelley
Consulting' s fee to approximately $4,900 per month, plus expenses.

1 89.
Kelley did not produce any written work product to AA, and he performed little
actual work for AA.

1 90.
Neither Kelley, nor CALABRESE disclosed to AA that J. Kevin Kelley
Consulting performed no work for AA in Lorain and did not perform work for AA to justify the
increase in fee.
191.
Kelley provided favorable consideration to CALABRESE and his designess on
business matters unrelated to AA, in return and in exchange for the consulting fees
CALABRESE caused J. Kevin Kelley Consulting to receive from AA
1 92.
Neither CALABRESE nor Kelley disclosed to AA the fact that Kelley provided
such favorable consideration to CALABRESE on non-AA matters.

Total payments to consultants
1 93.
In total, from on or about July 24, 2003 through on or about March 24, 2006,
CALABRESE caused AA to make payments to PRUDOFF and Relative 2 of approximately

$ 1 44,000.
1 94.
In total, from on or about March 3 1 , 2005 through on or about March 24, 2006,
CALABRESE caused AA to make payments to Business 43 of approximately $ 1 2,950.

1 95 .
I n total, from i n or around January 2002 through o n or about November 8 , 2007,
CALABRESE caused AA to make payments to A. C . Sinagra and Associates of approximately

$ 1 90,500.
33
1 96.
In total, from in or around October 2004 through on or about August 4, 2008,
CALABRESE caused AA to make payments to J. Kevin Kelley Consulting of approximately

$20 1 ,473 .
Use of the U.S. Mail
1 97.
On a regular basis and on numerous occasions from in or around January 2002
through on or about August 4, 2 008, CALABRESE, Sinagra, PRUDOFF and others executed and
attempted to execute the scheme and artifice set forth above by causing matters and things to be
sent and delivered by the United States Postal Service, according to the directions thereon within
the Northern District of Ohio, including:
( 1 ) invoices from purported consultants to AA in Cleveland, Ohio, including invoices
sent from A. C. Sinagra and Associates in Lakewood, Ohio to AA in Cleveland, Ohio on or about
January 3 1 , 2007, March 1 4, 2007, and August 30, 2007;
(2) AA's checks remitting payment on consultants' invoices, including payments on A.C.
Sinagra and Associates invoices sent from AA in Cleveland, Ohio to A. C. Sinagra and
Associates in Lakewood, Ohio on or about October 20, 2006, October 23, 2006, January 30,
2007, April 24, 2007, and August 20, 2007;
(3) checks from A.C. Sinagra Company LPA in Lakewood, Ohio sent to Burlwood
Holdings on or about August 23, 2006, October 24, 2006, and November 1 0, 2006;
(4) a check from A. C. Sinagra Company LPA in Lakewood, Ohio sent to Relative 2 on or
about August 23, 2006;
34
(5) checks from AA in Cleveland, Ohio to Business 43 on or about the following dates:
March 3 1 , 2005, "April 28, 2005, January 27, 2006, February 24, 2006 and March 24, 2006.
All in violation of Title I 8, United States Code, Section 1 349.
COUNTS 6-8
(Mail Fraud, in violation of 1 8 U.S.C. 1 34 1 and 2)
1 98.
Paragraphs 1 -4, 1 3 , 1 5, 1 1 5, 1 1 6, 1 1 8, 1 1 9 and 1 2 1 of this lndictment are re-
alleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

The Scheme
1 99.
From in or around March 2006, and continuing through on or about November 1 0,
2006, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Defendant ANTHONY 0.

CALABRESE, III, and Anthony Sinagra (not charged herein), and others known and unknown to
the Grand Jury, did devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud Alternatives
Agency of money and property and to obtain money and property by means of materially false
and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises.
It was part of the scheme that:
200.
On or about January 1 , 2006, A. C. Sinagra and Associates and AA entered into a
contract setting a monthly consulting fee at approximately $ 1 ,500.

20 I .
In or around March 2006, CALABRESE and Sinagra agreed that CALABRESE
would cause AA to increase its payments to A. C. Sinagra and Associates, and Sinagra would use
35
the additional funds to pay persons or entities identified by CALABRESE in the amounts
CALABRESE designated.
202.
CALABRESE asked Sinagra to pay CALABRESE, through Burlwood Holdings,
and further asked Sinagra to pay Relative 2. Sinagra agreed to both requests.
203 .
Sinagra did not perform additional work for AA to j ustify the increased fee.
204.
Neither CALABRESE nor Sinagra disclosed to AA that Sinagra performed no
legitimate work for AA to j ustify the increased fee.

205 .
On or about April 28, 2006, A.C. Sinagra and Associates issued an invoice to AA
for $6,000.
206.
On or about May 4, 2006, AA sent a check to A. C. Sinagra and Associates in the
amount of approximately $6,000, for payment on the April invoice.

207.
On or about May 1 2, 2006, A.C. Sinagra Company LPA issued a check for
208.
On or about May 22, 2006, A. C. Sinagra Company LPA issued a check for

209.
On or about May 3 0, 2006, A. C. Sinagra and Associates issued an invoice to AA
for $6,000.
2 1 .0 .
On or about June 1 6, 2006, AA issued a check to A.C. Sinagra and Associates in
the amount of approximately $6,000, for payment on the May invoice.

21 1.
On or about June 20, 2 006, A.C. Sinagra Company LPA issued a check for
approximately $2,000 to B erlwood (sic) Holdings, which CALABRESE caused to be negotiated.
36
2 1 2.
On or about June 20, 2006, A.C. Sinagra Company LPA issued a check for
213.
On or about June 26, 2006, A.C. Sinagra and Associates issued an invoice to AA
for $6,000.
2 1 4.
On or about July 6, 2006, AA issued a check to A. C. Sinagra and Associates in
the amount of approximately $6,000, for payment on the June invoice.

2 1 5.

2 1 6.
2 1 7.
On or about July 2 1 , 2006, A. C. Sinagra and Associates issued an invoice to AA
for $6,000.
2 1 8.
On or about August 1 6, 2006, AA issued a check to A. C . Sinagra and Associates
in the amount of approximately $6,000, for payment on the July invoice.

2 1 9.
On or about August 23, 2006, A. C. Sinagra Company LPA issued a check for

220.
On or about August 23, 2006, A.C. Sinagra Company LPA issued a check for
22 1 .
On or about August 25, 2006 and on or about September 29, 2006, A.C. Sinagra
and Associates issued an invoice to AA for $6,000 each.
37
222.
On or about October 24, 2006, A. C. Sinagra and Associates received three checks
from AA for approximately $6,000 each, as payment on previously issued invoices. Two checks
were dated on or about October 20, 2006 and the third check was dated on or about October 23,
2006.
223 .
O n o r about October 24, 2006, A.C. Sinagra Company LPA issued a check for

224.
On or about November 1 0, 2006, A. C. Sinagra Company LPA issued a check for
approximately $4,000 to Burlwood Holdings, which CALABRESE caused to be negotiated.

225.
Neither Burlwood, nor Relative 2 performed work for A.C. Sinagra and
Associates or A. C. Sinagra Company LPA.

226.
Neither CALABRESE nor Sinagra disclosed to AA that A. C. Sinagra Company
LP A made payments to Burl wood and Relative 2.

227.
In or around 2006, Kelley told CALABRESE that Kelley had received complaints
from AA employees about consulting payments that AA was making to Sinagra and the fact that
Sinagra's work did not justify the amount of monthly consulting fees paid to Sinagra.
CALABRESE instructed Kelley to speak favorably of Sinagra to these AA employees,
explaining to Kelley that Sinagra was paying a portion of his monthly consulting fee to
CALABRESE's relative.
228 .
O n o r about the following dates, for the purpose o f executing and attempting to
execute the foregoing scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money and property by means
of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations, CALABRESE knowingly placed and
caused to be placed in an authorized depository for mail matter any matter or thing whatever to
38
be sent and delivered by the U.S. Postal Service, and knowingly caused to be delivered by mail
or such carrier according to the direction thereon, each constituting a separate count:
Date
Description
October 23, 2006
Check from AA in Cleveland, Ohio to A. C. Sinagra and

Associates in Lakewood, Ohio for $6,000
October 24, 2006
Check from A.C. Sinagra Company LPA in Lakewood, Ohio

to Berlwood (sic) Holdings in Chagrin Falls, Ohio for $8,000
November 1 0, 2006
Check from A. C. Sinagra Company LPA in Lakewood, Ohio

to Burlwood Holdings in Chagrin Falls, Ohio for $4,000
Count
All in violation of Title 1 8, United States Code, Sections 1 34 1 and 2.

COUNT 9
(Tampering With a Witness, Victim or an Informant, 1 8 U.S.C. 1 5 1 2(c)(2) and 2)
229.
Paragraphs 1 , 1 1 - 1 3, 1 5, 1 1 7 and 1 20 of this Indictment are realleged and fully
At all times relevant to this count of the Indictment:
230.
Relative 1 ' s brother was Attorney 6.
23 1 .
Attorney 7 was CALABRESE's relative and was formerly related to Relative 1 .
232.
Business Executive or Employee 40 ("BE40") (now deceased) was a former
vendor to AA.
233 .
From i n or around December 2007 through the date o f the filing o f this
Indictment, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and Internal Revenue Service, Criminal
Investigation Division ("IRS") were investigating, among other things, whether individuals and
private companies had provided things of value, including cash, travel, meals, and free and
39
discounted home improvements, to James C. Dimora, Frank P. Russo, John Kevin Kelley and
other public officials in return for their promise to perform official acts. The FBI and IRS were
also investigating, among other things, whether CALABRESE and others abused their positions
of trust by misdirecting funds provided to AA for their personal benefit (hereinafter "County
Corruption Investigation").
234.
During the period from in or around July 28, 2008 through on or about the date of
this Indictment, a Federal Grand Jury sitting in the Northern District of Ohio was conducting a
criminal investigation, pursuant to its powers as set forth under Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, into matters stemming from the County Corruption Investigation.
23 5 .
O n o r about the morning o f February 2, 2009, the FBI interviewed Relative 1 i n
connection with payments she received from AA through Business 43 . Relative 1 told the FBI
that BE3 9 and BE40 contacted her about consulting for AA, that she (Relative 1 ) conducted all
of her work from home, and that she (Relative 1 ) worked on AA' s plans to expand into Lorain
County. The FBI served Relative 1 with a federal grand j ury subpoena.
The Offense
236.
On or about February 2, 2009, the exact date unknown to the Grand Jury, in the
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Defendant ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE, III, did
corruptly obstruct, influence and impede an official proceeding and attempted to do so, in
violation of Title 1 8, United States Code, Section 1 5 1 2(c )(2).
It was part of the offense that:
40
237.
On or about February 2, 2009, CALABRESE told BE39 that CALABRESE and
Attorney 7 had recently met with Attorney 6. CALABRESE asked that BE3 9 meet with
Attorney 6.
23 8.
On or about February 2, 2009, BE39 met with Attorney 6.
239.
During the meeting, Attorney 6 told BE39 that CALABRESE and Attorney 7
wanted Attorney 6 to meet with BE39 to go over the script.

240.
Attorney 6 instructed BE39 that if anyone questioned BE39 about Relative 1 ,
BE39 should say that BE40 and he (BE39) hired Relative 1 to work out of her home to help with
the Lorain expansion, which CALABRESE and BE39 knew was not true.
All in violation of Title 1 8, United States Code, Sections 1 5 1 2(c)(2) and 2.
COUNT 1 0
(Conspiracy to Commit Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds,
1 8 U. S.C. 666, in violation of 1 8 U.S.C. 3 7 1 )
24 1 .
Paragraphs 1 , 3 , 4, 6-9, 1 3, 1 4 and 1 6 of this Indictment are realleged and fully
242.
The County was a government agency as that term is defined in Title 1 8, United
States Code, Section 666(d)(2). The County received benefits in excess of $ 1 0,000 during each
of the one year periods July 2 1 , 2005 through July 20, 2006; July 2 1 , 2006 through July 20, 2007;
July 2 1 , 2007 through July 20, 2008; and July 2 1 , 2008 through July 20, 2009 under a Federal
program
involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance and other form of
Federal assistance.
41
243 .
Kelley and Payne were agents of the County as defined in Title 1 8, Section
666(d)( 1 ) United States Code.

,
244.
The Geospatial Information Systems ("GIS") project was a joint project of the
County Commissioners, the Auditor's Office and the Engineer's Office, financed by the County
general fund. Kelley served as the project manager. GIS maps and data combine layers of
information (such as streets, parcel numbers and population density) about a geographical region
using computer software. The GIS project was completed in phases, consisting of constructing
the initial GIS system, followed by projects that would enhance the system and make it available
to other users (hereinafter collectively "GIS Project").
245.
In or around November 2004, the County sought a Request for Qualification
("RFQ") for a GIS contractor. In or around March 2005, the original RFQ was withdrawn and a
second RFQ issued. Kelley served on a five-member committee to review the RFQ responses.
Eight companies, including Business 7, submitted proposals in response to the RFQ.
246.
Business 7 was a professional engineering and consulting services company that
provided geospatial services. Business 7a was the engineering unit of Business 7 (collectively
"Business 7").
247.
Business Executive or Employee 42 ("BE42") was a supervisor at Business 7.
248 .
Business 7 ' s GIS project manager, Business Executive o r Employee 3 ("BE3")
oversaw daily operations and managed employees. In or about February 2008, BE3 left Business
7 and began working for Business 8 as a Project Director for the Dayton, Ohio office.
249.
Business 8 was a national Geographic Information Systems firm.
42

)I
THE CONSPIRACY
250.
From in or around July 2 1 , 2005 and continuing through on or about November
25, 2008, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division and elsewhere, Defendant ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE, III, and John Kevin
Kelley (not charged herein), Kevin F. Payne (deceased and not charged herein), Daniel P.
Gallagher (not charged herein), and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, did knowingly
and intentionally combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other to commit an offense
against the United States, that is, bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds, in
violation of Title 1 8, United States Code, Sections 666(a)( l )(B) and (a)(2).
25 1 .
It was an object of the conspiracy that Kelley and Payne corruptly solicited,
demanded, accepted and agreed to accept money for the benefit of any person from
CALABRESE, Law Firm 1 , and Eagle, Kelley and Payne acting with the intent that Kelley and
Payne be influenced and rewarded in connection with a business, transaction and series of
transactions of the County valued at $5,000 or more in the one year periods July 2 1 , 2005
through July 20, 2006; July 2 1 , 2006 through July 20, 2007; July 2 1 , 2007 through July 20, 2008;
and July 2 1 , 2008 through July 20, 2009; that is, the award and administration of County
business related to the GIS Project, both as requested and as future opportunities arose.
252.
It was a further object of the conspiracy that CALABRESE, Law Firm 1, and
Eagle corruptly gave, offered and agreed to give money to Payne, acting with the intent to
influence and reward Kelley and Payne in connection with the above described business,
transaction and series of transactions.
43
253.
It was a further object of the conspiracy that CALABRESE and Law Firm 1
received a financial benefit in connection with the above described business, transaction, and
series of transactions.
MANNER AND MEANS
It was part _of the conspiracy that:
254.
In or around 2005, Payne and Kelley discussed a way for Payne to obtain bribes
and kickbacks from the GIS proj ect.

255.
On or about July 2 1 , 2005, the County Commissioners awarded an approximately
$725,000 contract for consultant services for the GIS project to Business 7.
256.
In or around the end of 2005, Kelley used his position as GIS project manager to
facilitate Business 7 engaging Law Firm 1 in a professional services agreement.

257.
In or around 2005 , Kelley asked CALABRESE to cause Law Firm 1 to hire Eagle,
which would then use the money received from Law Firm 1 to pay Payne.
258.
On or about October 27, 2005, the County Commissioners awarded an
approximately $637,050 contract to Business 7, as Amendment 1 to the GIS Project.

259.
On or about January 1 6, 2006, Business 7 signed a professional services
agreement with Law Firm 1 , at a rate of approximately $3 ,000 per month, with Law Firm
paying Eagle $ 1 ,500 of the $3 ,000 monthly fee.

260.
CALABRESE caused Law Firm
to issue invoices to Business 7 at a rate of
approximately $3,000 per month, and Law Firm 1 received payment from Business 7 on those
invoices.
44
26 1 .
Payne created Eagle invoices to Law Firm 1 for approximately $ 1 ,500 and gave
the invoices to Kelley to give to CALABRESE.

262.
Kelley hand-delivered to CALABRESE the Eagle invoices that Payne had given
to Kelley.
263 .
Kelley and CALABRESE sometimes spoke in code to coordinate the delivery of
the Eagle invoices.

264.
CALABRESE caused the Eagle invoices to be processed for payment by Law
265.
Gallagher caused to be negotiated the checks from Law Firm
Firm 1 .
1
to Eagle, and gave
Payne approximately one third of the money that Eagle received from Law Firm 1 .
266.
Eagle performed no work for Law Firm 1 on the GIS project.
267.
Kelley and Payne used their official positions to influence the award and
administration of the GIS project to benefit Business 7 and later, Business 8 .

268.
On or about March 6, 2008, the County Commissioners awarded a $94,539.72
contract to Business 8 for Digital Orthoimagery, which was part of the overall GIS Project.
269.
On or about April 3, 2008, the County Commissioners awarded an approximately
$485,000 contract to Business 8, for the Sanitary Engineer' s Consolidated Work Order and
Resource Management Application for the County Sanitary Engineering Division (hereinafter
"Sanitary Engineer' s Project"), which was part of the overall GIS Project.
270.
On or about June 26, 2008, the County Commissioners awarded an additional
$ 1 79,000 to Business 8 for Amendment I to Digital Orthoimagery, which was part of the overall
GIS Project.
45
27 1 .
On or about November 2 1 , 2006, the County Commissioners awarded an
approximately $3, 1 4 1 ,646 contract for consultant services for Amendment 2 to the GIS project to
Business 7.
272.
On or about October 1 8, 2007, the Cuyahoga County Commissioners awarded
Business 7 Amendment 3 to the GIS contract valued at approximately $760,300.

273.
On or about January 24, 2008, Business 7 gave CALABRESE and Law Firm 1
notice that it was terminating its professional services arrangement with Law Firm 1 , effective on
or about January 3 1 , 2008 .
274.
In or around early 2008, Kelley used his official position to facilitate Business 8
retaining Law Firm 1 for professional services.

275.
On or about January 25, 2008, CALABRESE and BE3 discussed the possibility of
Business 8 entering into a professional services arrangement with Law Firm 1 .

276.
On or about, March 1 1 , 2008, Business 8 executed a professional services
agreement with Law Firm 1 at a monthly rate of approximately $3 ,500, with Law Firm 1 paying
Eagle approximately $2,000 from the money Law Firm 1 received from Business 8 .
277.
CALABRESE caused Law Firm 1 to issue invoices to Business 8, and Law Firm
1 received payment from Business 8 on those invoices.

278.
Payne created Eagle invoices to Law Firm 1 for approximately $2,000 and gave

279.
to Kelley.
46
280.
28 1 .
Gallagher caused to be negotiated the checks from Law Firm 1 to Eagle, and gave
Firm 1 .
OVERT ACTS
282.
In furtherance of the conspiracy, and to effect the objects thereof, CALABRESE,
Kelley, Payne, Gallagher and others committed the following overt acts in the Northern District
of Ohio and elsewhere:
A.
On or about January 4, 2008 at approximately 3 :3 0 p.m., Kelley told
CALABRESE, "I have that, you asked for a couple,
urn,
uh twelve items for that one bird."
Kelley clarified he was referring to invoices for the Eagle Group. CALABRESE confirmed he
was out of Eagle invoices. Kelley said, "He [Payne] called me and said he had 'em ."
CALABRESE thanked Kelley. Kelley and CALABRESE agreed to meet the following Monday.
B.
On or about January 1 6, 2008 at approximately 6:57 p.m., CALABRESE
and Kelley discussed BE3 changing employers from Business 7 to Business 8. Kelley told
CALABRESE, those guys with whom you have "that Eagle thing" are probably "going, uh, you
know, to finish that off." CALABRESE asked, "They are gonna stop it?" Kelley replied, from
his understanding the guy was moving to another company and "they" were going to pick it up.
CALABRESE and Kelley then discussed BE3 moving and that "it" would go with BE3 because
Business 8 was on State terms. CALABRESE and Kelley both agreed that this was good.
CALABRESE inquired if he should resign from Business 7. Kelley told Calabrese, "Keep going
until they stop," and later added, "Let it play out."
47
C.
On or about January 24, 2008 at approximately 9 :59 a.m., CALABRESE
told Kelley that he (CALABRESE) was meeting with BE42 in a few minutes to discuss projects
in 2008. Kelley said that he was sure that BE42 was going to "whack you guys." CALABRESE
agreed that BE42 was going to "terminate us." CALABRESE then asked Kelley what
CALABRESE did "besides help with the things at the County?" CALABRESE asked Kelley,
"What did I do there, just tell me again." CALABRESE later asked, "Do I know [BE3] left, or
no?'' Kelley told CALABRESE how to answer the questions and told CALABRESE to tell
BE42, "Every time they came, County issues, you helped resolve those." CALABRESE said, "If
he whacks, which I'm fine with, urn, I assume you, that we'll just figure something else out."
Kelley responded, "We're gonna go in a different direction . . . I already have that set up."
D.
On or about January 30, 2008 at approximately 5 :45 p.m., Kelley and
CALABRESE discussed Law Finn 1 working with Business 8 instead of Business . ?. Kelley
said, "I wouldn't be surprised if [Business 7] tries to bring you back." CALABRESE responded
that he cannot do both, so Kelley will have to advise him. CALABRESE then asked, "Yeah, and
here and uh and on and on [BE3], I mean, would four be out of line with two going to Eagle
cause they do half the work or do you want me to do three with half?" Kelley responded, "No,
no, no, no, go four." CALABRESE said, "Yeah, don't you think?" Kelley replied, "Yeah,
Absolutely." CALABRESE told Kelley, "I may even do twenty-five with Eagle, and just to,
' cause, uh, all I need really is fifteen hundred and I can, I can, I can help them out." Kelley said,
"I think, yeah, absolutely. I mean you're definitely going to help them."
E.
On or about February 22, 2008, CALABRESE caused to be sent to BE3 , a
proposed engagement letter between Law Firm 1 and Business 8 .

48
F.
On or about February 25, 2008 at approximately 2 : 59 p.m., CALABRESE
and Kelley discussed the fact that since Kelley caused Business 8 to receive a greater contract
with the County on the GIS Project, Business 8 had more money available to pay Law Firm 1 .
G.
On or about March 7, 2008 at approximately 1 I :57 a.m., CALABRESE
told Kelley, "BE3 called me, he split the baby, which is better than 3 , he gave me 3 500 just FYI."
H.
On or about March I I , 2008 at approximately 1 I :56 a.m., CALABRESE
told Kelley that Gallagher was in Florida for another week. CALABRESE then said, "On those,
urn, things, I need, you know, ten of those . . . for my Eagle proj ect." Kelley responded,
"Absolutely."
I.
O n o r about the following dates, CALABRESE caused to b e issued a
check drawn on the account of Law Firm 1 , payable to The Eagle Group, LLC, each check
constituting a separate overt act.
Date
Approximate Amount
1- 1
February 28, 2006
$ 1 ,500
1-2
April 7, 2006
$3 ,000
I-3
May 9, 2006
$ 1 ,500
I-4
May 23, 2006
$ 1 ,500
1-5
June 25, 2006
$ I ,500
1-6
August 1 1 , 2006
$ I ,500
1-7
September 1 , 2006
$ 1 ,500
I-8
September 29, 2006
$ I ,500
1-9
December 1 , 2006
$ 1 ,500
I- I O
January 3 , 2007
$ 1 ,500
1- 1 1
January 26, 2007
$ I ,500
Overt Act
49
1-1 2
March 1 , 2007
$ 1 ,500
1- 1 3
May 2, 2007
$ 1 ,500
1- 1 4
May 4, 2007
$ 1 ,500
1:.. 1 5
May 25, 2007
$ 1 ,500
I- 1 6
July 1 7, 2007
$ 1 ,500
1- 1 7
July 24, 2007
$ 1 ,500
1- 1 8
September 1 0, 2007
$ 1 ,500
1- 1 9
October 26, 2007
$ 1 ,500
I-20
November 27, 2007
$ 1 ,500
I-2 1
January 30, 2008
$2,000
I-22
April 9, 2008
$2,000
I-23
April 1 8, 2008
$2,000
I-24
June 3, 2008
$2,000
I-25
July 2, 2008
$2,000
I-26
August 1 4, 2008
$2,000
1-27
August 22, 2008
$2,000
J.
On or about November 25, 2008, CALABRESE caused to be received by
Law Firm 1 a check in the amount of approximately $ 1 ,500, payable to Law Firm 1 , drawn on
the account of Business 8 .
All in violation of Title 1 8, United States Code, Section 3 7 1 .
50

COUNT 1 1
1 8 U.S.C. 1 34 1 and 1 346, in violation of 1 8 U. S.C. 1 349)
283.
Paragraphs 1 , 3 , 4, 6-9, 1 3, 1 4, 1 6, 244, 246, and 248-49 of this Indictment are re-

THE CONSPIRACY
284.
From on or about July 2 1 , 2005 through on or about November 25, 2008, the
exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division
and elsewhere, Defendant ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE, III, and John Kevin Kelley (not
charged herein), Kevin F. Payne (deceased and not charged herein), and Daniel P. Gallagher (not
charged herein) and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, did knowingly and
intentionally combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other to commit offenses
against the United States; that is, to knowingly devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice:
( 1 ) to defraud and deprive the County (including the Auditor's Office, Engineer' s Office
and the County Commissioners) and its citizens, of their right to the honest and faithful
services of Kelley and Payne, through bribery and kickbacks and the concealment of
material information related thereto, and
(2) to defraud the County (including the Auditor's Office, Engineer's Office and the
County Commissioners) and to obtain money and property by means of materially false
and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises,
and for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, to cause matters to be placed
in any post office and authorized depository for mail matter to be sent and delivered by the
51
United States Postal Service and private and commercial interstate carrier, in violation of Title
1 8, United States Code, Sections 1 34 1 and 1 346.
285.
It was the object of the conspiracy that Kelley and Payne secretly used their
official positions to enrich Payne and Gallagher by soliciting and accepting gifts, payment, and
other things of value from CALABRESE, Law Firm 1 , Eagle and others, in exchange for
favorable official action, and that CALABRESE enriched himself and Law Firm 1 , by secretly
obtaining favorable official action through corrupt means.
MANNER AND MEANS
286.
Payne, with Kelley's assistance, solicited and accepted money from Law Firm 1
and CALABRESE, through Eagle and Gallagher.

287.
Payne and Kelley provided favorable official action for the benefit of Law Firm 1
and CALABRESE both as requested and as future opportunities arose.

288.
nature and scope of CALABRESE ' s dealings with Payne.

Acts in furtherance of the conspiracy
289.
In or around 2005, Payne and Kelley discussed a way for Payne to obtain bribes
and kickbacks from the GIS project. .

290.
On or about July 2 1 , 2005, the County Commissioners awarded an approximately
$725,000 contract for consultant services for the GIS project to Business 7 .
52
291 .
In or around the end of 2005, Kelley used his position as GIS project manager to
facilitate Business 7 engaging Law Firm 1 in a professional services agreement.

292.
In or around 2005, Kelley asked CALABRESE to cause Law Firm
to hire Eagle,
which would then use the money received from Law Firm 1 to pay Payne.
293 .
On or about October 27, 2005, the County Commissioners awarded an
approximately $63 7,050 contract to Business 7, as Amendment 1 to the GIS Project.

294.
On or about January 1 6, 2006, Business 7 signed a professional services
agreement with Law Firm 1 , at a rate of approximately $3 ,000 per month, with Law Firm 1
paying Eagle $ 1 ,500 of the $3 ,000 monthly fee.
295.
CALABRESE caused Law Firm 1 to issue invoices to Business 7 at a rate of
approximately $3,000 per month, and Law Firm 1 received payment from Business 7 on those
invoices.
296.
Payne created Eagle invoices to Law Firm 1 for approximately $1 ,500 and gave

297.
to Kelley.
298.
Kelley and CALABRESE sometimes spoke in code to coordinate the delivery of
the Eagle invoices.

299.
3 00.
Firm 1 .
53
301 .
Eagle performed no work for Law Firm 1 on the GIS project.
302.
Kelley and Payne used their official positions to influence the award and
administration of the GIS project to benefit Business 7 and later, Business 8.

303 .
On or about March 6, 2008, the County Commissioners awarded a $94,539.72
contract to Business 8 for Digital Orthoimagery, which was part of the overall GIS Project.
304.
On or about April 3, 2008, the County Commissioners awarded an approximately
$485,000 contract to Business 8, for the Sanitary Engineer' s Consolidated Work Order and
Resource Management Application for the County Sanitary Engineering Division (hereinafter
"Sanitary Engineer' s Project"), which was part of the overall GIS Proj ect.
305 .
On or about June 26, 2008, the County Commissioners awarded an additional
$ 1 79,000 to Business 8 for Amendment 1 to Digital Orthoimagery, which was part of the overall
GIS Project.
306.
On or about November 2 1 , 2006, the County Commissioners awarded an
approximately $3, 1 4 1 ,646 contract for consultant services for Amendment 2 to the GIS project to
Business 7.
307.
On or about October 1 8, 2007, the Cuyahoga County Commissioners awarded
Business 7 Amendment 3 to the GIS contract valued at approximately $760,300.

308.
On or about January 24, 2008, Business 7 gave CALABRESE and Law Firm I
notice that it was terminating its professional services arrangement with Law Firm 1 , effective on
or about January 3 1 , 2008.
3 09.
In or around early 2008, Kelley used his official position to facilitate Business 8
retaining Law Firm 1 for professional services.

54
3 1 0.
On or about January 25, 2008, CALABRESE and BE3 discussed the possibility of
Business 8 entering into a professional services arrangement with Law Firm 1 .

311.
On or about March 1 1 , 2008, Business 8 executed a professional services
agreement with Law Firm 1 at a monthly rate of approximately $3,500, with Law Firm 1 paying
Eagle approximately $2,000 from the money Law Firm 1 received from Business 8 .
3 12.
CALABRESE caused Law Firm 1 to issue invoices to Business 8 , and Law Firm
1 received payment from Business 8 on those invoices.

3 1 3.
Payne created Eagle invoices to Law Firm 1 for approximately $2,000 and gave

3 1 4.
to Kelley.
3 1 5.
3 1 6.
Firm 1 .
Use of the U.S. Mail
3 1 7.
On a regular basis and on numerous occasions during the course of this
conspiracy, CALABRESE, Kelley, Payne and others executed and attempted to execute the
scheme and artifice set forth above by causing matters and things to be sent and delivered by the
United States Postal Service, according to the directions thereon within the Northern District of
Ohio, including:
55
A.
County payments to Business 7 and Business 8 for work that Business 7 and
Business 8 performed on the overall GIS project.

B.
Invoices sent from Law Firm I to Business 7, including invoices sent on or about
the following dates: March 1 3, 2006, May 5, 2006, June 1 6, 2006, July 1 9, 2006, August 3 1 ,
2006, September 1 3 , 2006, October 1 7, 2006, November 1 7, 2006, December 19, 2006, January
23, 2007, February 1 9, 2007, March 27, 2007, May 1 8, 2007, June 1 5, 2007, July 1 6, 2007,
August 1 5 , 2007, September 2 1 , 2007, October 1 5 , 2007, November 1 6, 2007, December 1 8,
2007 and February 1 5, 2008.
C.
Checks sent from Business 7 to Law Firm 1 as payment on the above described
InVOICeS.
D.
Invoices sent from Law Firm 1 to Business 8, including invoices sent on or about
the following dates: April 1 5, 2008, May 1 5, 2008, June 1 3 , 2008, July 1 5, 2008, August 1 5,
2008, September 1 5, 2008, October 1 5, 2008, and November 1 4, 2008 .
E.
Correspondence sent from CALABRESE to Gallagher on or about February 28,
2006, enclosing a $1 ,500 check from Law Firm 1 to Eagle.

F.
Checks from Law Firm 1 to Eagle, including checks sent on or about the
following dates: February 28, 2006, April 7, 2006, May 9, 2006, May 23, 2006, June 25, 2006,
August 1 1 , 2006, September 1 , 2 006, September 29, 2006, December 1 , 2006, January 3, 2007,
January 26, 2007, March 1 , 2007, May 2, 2007, May 4, 2007, May 25, 2007, July 1 7, 2007, July
24, 2007, September 1 0, 2007, October 26, 2007, November 27, 2007, January 30, 2008, April 9,
2008, April 1 8, 2008, June 3 , 2008, July 2, 2008, August 1 4, 2008 and August 22, 2008.

56

COUNT 1 2
(Conspiracy to Commit Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds,
1 8 u . s .c. 3 7 1 )
3 1 8.
Paragraphs 1 -4, 6-9, 1 3, 1 4, 1 6, 244, 246, and 248-49 of this Indictment are re-

3 1 9.
At all times relevant, the County was a government agency as that term is defined
in Title 1 8, United States Code, Section 666( d)(2). The County received benefits in excess of
$ 1 0,000 during the calendar year 2008 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract,
subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance and other form of Federal assistance.
320.
Kelley and Payne were agents of the County as defined in Title 1 8, Section
666(d)( 1 ), United States Code.

32 1 .
Business Executive or Employee 3 7 ("BE3 7") replaced BE3 as the project
manager at Business 7, when BE3 left Business 7 for Business 8 .

322 .
Broma Information Technology ("Broma") was an I T consulting firm and a Small
Business Enterprise ("SBE") certified with the County and located in Cleveland, Ohio.
323.
Anthony Ma ("Ma"), now deceased, was an officer or employee of Broma.
324.
Business 44 was a technology consulting company founded by Business
Executive or Employee 3 8 ("BE3 8"). At times, Business 44 was an SBE certified with the
County.
325 .
On or about April 3, 2008, the County Commissioners approved an approximately
$485,000 contract with Business 8 for the Sanitary Engineer's Project, which was part of the
overall GIS project.
57
THE CONSPIRACY
326.
From in or around February 2008 and continuing through on or about September
Kelley (not charged herein), and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, did knowingly
and intentionally combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other to commit an offense
against the United States, that is, bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds, in
violation of Title 1 8, United States Code, Sections 666(a)(l )(B) and (a)(2).
327.
It was an object of the conspiracy that Kelley corruptly solicited, demanded and
agreed to accept money for the benefit of any person from CALABRESE, Burl wood Holdings,
and Business 44, Kelley acting with the intent that Kelley be influenced and rewarded in
connection with a business, transaction and series of transactions of the County valued at $5,000
or more in the calendar year 2008; that is, the award and administration of County business
related to the Sanitary Engineer's Project, which was related to the overall GIS Project, both as
requested and as future opportunities arose.
328.
It was a further obj ect of the conspiracy that CALABRESE, Burlwood Holdings
and Business 44 corruptly gave, offered and agreed to give to Kelley money, acting with the
intent to influence and reward Kelley in connection with the above described business,
58
3 29.
It was a further object of the conspiracy that CALABRESE obtained a financial
benefit for himself and for Burlwood in connection with the above described business,
MANNER AND MEANS
330.
On or about February 28, 2008, Business 8 provided Kelley with a proposal for
the Sanitary Engineer' s Project, which was part of the overall GIS Project.
33 1 .
On or about March 26, 2008, Kelley caused the ADP Board to approve a proposed
contract with Business 8 for the Sanitary Engineer's Project, which would
run
from on or about
April 1 , 2008 to on or about March 3 1 , 2009, in the amount of approximately $485,000.

3 32.
On or about April 1, 2008 at approximately 8 : 00 a.m., Anthony Ma and BE3 met
to discuss the possibility of Broma serving as Business 8 ' s SBE on the Sanitary Engineer's
Project.
333.
On o r about April 1 , 2008 at approximately 1 1 :20 a.m., M a communicated to BE3
that Broma could not partner with Business 8 on the Sanitary Engineer' s Project.
334.
On or about April 1 , 2008 at approximately 1 :30 p.m., BE3 communicated with
Gallagher about Broma declining to partner with Business 8 on the Sanitary Engineer' s Project.
335.
In o r around April 2008, after Business 8 learned that Broma could not partner
with Business 8 on the Sanitary Engineer's Project, CALABRESE suggested that Business 8 use
Business 44 to fulfill the SBE requirement.
3 3 6.
Kelley understood that if Business 8 used Business 44 on the Sanitary Engineer' s
Project, Business 44 would pay a fee to Burlwood Holdings, LLC.

59
337.
CALABRESE told Kelley that Kelley would receive approximately $ 1 5,000 over
the course of Business 44' s contract, if Business 8 engaged Business 44 to work on the Sanitary
Engineer' s Project.
33 8.
Kelley was to keep a portion of the $ 1 5,000 and cause to be distributed the
remaining money to others.

3 3 9.
Kelley used and attempted to use his official position to arrange for Business 8 to
use Business 44' s services on the Sanitary Engineer's Project.

340.
On or about May 1 9, 2008, Business 8 signed a subcontractor's agreement with
Business 44, valued at approximately $75 ,000, related to the Sanitary Engineer' s Project.
341 .
The first payment to Kelley was scheduled to occur on or about August 1 , 2008,
but did not happen, following the July 28, 2008 search warrants that the FBI and IRS executed at
Kelley's home and office and other locations throughout the County.
OVERT ACTS
3 42 .
I n furtherance o f the conspiracy, and to effect the objects thereof, CALABRESE,
Kelley and others committed the following overt acts in the Northern District of Ohio and
elsewhere:
A.
On or about January 30, 2008 at approximately 5 :45 p.m., Kelley and
CALABRESE discussed work CALABRESE has been doing on the "Engineer' s project" and
that CALABRESE had not been officially hired. CALABRESE said, "We're already working on
it. BE3 8 is doing his behind the scenes thing. He and I are supposed to talk Monday." Kelley
told CALABRESE that he talked to the "Business 7 guys" today and also BE3 . Kelley said that
he told everyone, "There' s enough work for everybody." Kelley told CALABRESE about a
60
meeting Kelley had with Business 7, and then said, "I wouldn't be surprised if Business 7 tries to
bring you back." CALABRESE responded that he cannot do both, so KELLEY would have to
advise him.
B.
On or about April 30, 2008 at approximately 6 : 5 5 p.m., Kelley told
CALABRESE that he wanted to meet regarding the SBE matter involving Kevin Payne. Kelley
said that they were moving forward on CALABRESE's recommendation. CALABRESE said
that they have not done anything yet because CALABRESE' s guy called and CALABRESE had
to meet with him and he was not going to do anything yet.
C.
On or about July 8, 2008, CALABRESE caused to be sent to BE3 8 an
email with an invoice from Burl wood Holdings for approximately $7,500.
D.
On or about September 1 2, 2008, CALABRESE caused to be deposited a
check from Business 44 to Burlwood Holdings, LLC for approximately $5,000.

E.
On or about September 25, 2008, CALABRESE caused to be deposited a
check from Business 44 to Burlwood Holdings, LLC for approximately $5,000.

COUNT 1 3
(Hobbs Act Conspiracy, 1 8 U.S.C. 1 95 1 )
343 .
Paragraphs 1 -4, 6-9, 1 3 and 244 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated
by reference as if fully set forth herein.

344.
The operations of Business 44 affected interstate commerce.
345 .
The operations of Burl wood Holdings affected interstate commerce.
61
346.
The operations of the County, the County Commissioners, the Auditor's Office,
and the Engineer' s Office affected interstate commerce.

THE CONSPIRACY
34 7.
Beginning in or around March 2008 and continuing until on or about September
Kelley (not charged herein), and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, did knowingly
and intentionally combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other to obstruct, delay and
affect commerce and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce by extortion, in
that Kelley attempted to obtain property from Business 44 and Burlwood Holdings, with their
consent; to wit: money, under color of official right.
COUNT 1 4
1 8 U. S.C. 1 34 1 and 1 346, in violation of 1 8 U.S.C. 1 349)
348 .
Paragraphs 1 , 3 , 4, 1 0 and 1 3 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.

THE CONSPIRACY
349.
From in or around 200 I through on or about July 28, 2008, the exact dates being
unknown to the Grand Jury, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division and elsewhere,
Defendant AN THON Y 0.
CALABRESE,
III, and John Kevin Kelley (not charged herein), and
others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, did knowingly and intentionally combine,
62
conspire, confederate and agree with each other to commit offenses against the United States;
that is, to knowingly devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice:
( 1 ) to defraud and deprive the Parma City School District, and the Cities of Parma, Parma
Heights, and Seven Hills and their citizens, of their right to the honest and faithful
services of Kelley, through bribery and kickbacks and the concealment of material
information related thereto, and
(2) to defraud the Parma City School District and to obtain money and property by means
of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises,
States Postal Service and private and commercial interstate carrier, in violation of Title I 8,
United States Code, Sections 1 34 1 and 1 346.
350.
It was the obj ect of the conspiracy that Kelley secretly used his official position on
the Parma City School Board to enrich himself and his designees, CALABRESE, Law Firm 1 ,
their clients, and their designees, by soliciting and accepting gifts, payments, and other things of
value from CALABRESE and others, in exchange for favorable official action, and that
CALABRESE enriched himself, Law Firm
I,
their clients and their designees, by secretly
obtaining favorable official action through corrupt means.

MANNER AND MEANS
It
was part of the conspiracy that:
63
35 1 .
CALABRESE asked Kelley to use his official position to influence PCSD
business to benefit CALABRESE, Law Firm 1 , their clients and designees.

352.
Kelley used his official position to award PCSD business both directly, and
through sub-contracts, to Law Firm 1 and to CALABRESE's and Law Firm 1 ' s clients, both as
requested and as future opportunities arose.
353.
Kelley used his official position t o administer PCSD business favorably to Law
Firm 1 and CALABRESE's clients, both as requested and as future opportunities arose.
3 54.
CALABRESE received a personal benefit when Law Firm 1 and clients of
CALABRESE and Law Firm 1 received favorable official action from PCSD.
355.
CALABRESE offered and gave to Kelley gifts, payments, and other things of
value, and Kelley solicited and accepted gifts, payments, and other things of value from
CALABRESE and others. The tings of value included campaign contributions, cash, tickets,
and meals.
356.
At times, CALABRESE directly provided things of value to Kelley. At other
times, CALABRESE served as an intermediary between Kelley and a person seeking favorable
official action from Kelley and the PCSD.
3 57.
On occasion, when CALABRESE served as a conduit, CALABRESE used code
words to reveal to Kelley the source of the thing of value that CALABRESE was giving to
Kelley.
358.
CALABRESE, Kelley and other conspirators used and caused to be used the
United States mail to send and deliver mail matter in furtherance of the conspiracy, including
mail matter sent and received in the Northern District of Ohio.
64
3 59.
nature and scope of CALABRESE' s dealings with Kelley.

COUNT 1 5
(False Statement to Law Enforcement, 1 8 U.S.C. 1 00 1 )
3 60.
Paragraphs 1 , 5 , 1 3 , 1 5 and 1 1 9 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated
by reference as if fully set forth herein.

361 .
During the period from on or about January I , 2008 through on or about
September 1 , 2009, the FBI, part of the executive branch of the Government ofthe United States,
acting in a matter within its j urisdiction, was investigating PRUDOFF, Calabrese, Kelley,
Sinagra and others, in connection with AA' s payments to various consultants.
362.
During the period from on or about January 1 , 2009 through on or about
September 1 , 2009, a Federal Grand Jury sitting in the Northern District of Ohio conducted a
criminal investigation, pursuant to its powers as set forth under Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, into the activities of PRUDOFF, Calabrese, S inagra, Kelley and others in
connection with AA' s payments to various consultants.
363 .
On or about August 1 9, 2009, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
Defendant SANFORD A. PRUDOFF, knowingly and willfully made material false statements to
a Special Agent of the FBI in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the
Government of the United States, that is; ( 1 ) PRUDOFF said that he performed site selection
reviews for Alternatives Agency in every city in Lorain County other than the City of Lorain; and
(2) PRUDOFF said that he did not deal with Calabrese on matters other than AA; well knowing
65
at the time that he made the statements to a Special Agent of the FBI that the statements were
false.
364.
Defendant made the false statements described above with the intent to corruptly
obstruct, influence and impede and to attempt to obstruct, influence and impede the Federal
Grand Jury' s investigation described above. Defendant' s false statements caused Special Agents
of the FBI to perform additional investigation.
All in violation of Title I 8, United States Code, Section I 00 1 .
COUNT I 6
(Making or Subscribing a False Tax Return, 26 U.S.C. 7206( I ))
365.
On or about August I 5, 2005, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
Defendant SANFORD A. PRUDOFF, a resident of Lorain, Ohio, did willfully make and
subscribe a U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form I 040, for the calender year 2004, on his
behalf, which was verified by a written declaration that it was made under the penalties of perjury
and was filed with the Internal Revenue Service, and which he did not believe to be true and
correct as to every material matter in that, as he then and there well knew and believed, said
return understated total income (on line 22).
All in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206( 1 ).
COUNT I 7
(Making or Subscribing a False Tax Return, 26 U.S.C. 7206(1 ))
366.
On or about October 1 5, 2006, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
66
subscribe a U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1 040, for the calender year 2005, on his
All in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(1 )

COUNT 1 8
(Making or Subscribing a False Tax Return, 26 U. S.C. 7206( 1 ))
367.
On or about October 1 5, 2007, in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
subscribe a U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1 040, for the calender year 2006, on his
All in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(1 ).
RACKETEERING FORFEITURE
368.
The allegations contained in Count 1 of this Indictment are hereby repeated,
re-alleged, and incorporated by reference herein as though fully set forth at length for the purpose
of alleging forfeiture pursuant to the provisions of Title 1 8, United States Code, Section 1 963
and Title 28, United States Code, Section 246 1 (c). Pursuant to Rule 32.2, Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, notice is hereby given to defendant ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE, III, that
the United States will seek forfeiture as part of any sentence in accordance with Title 1 8, United
States Code, Section 1 963 in the event of the defendant' s conviction under Count 1 of this
Indictment. As a result of the foregoing offense, defendant ANTHONY 0 . CALABRESE, III,
shall forfeit the following property to the United States:
a.)
Any interest defendant ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE, III, acquired or maintained
in violation of 1 8 U.S.C. 1 962;

b.)
Any interest in, security of, claim against, or property or contractual right of any
kind affording a source of influence over, any enterprise which defendant ANTHONY 0 .
CALABRESE,
Ill,
established, operated, controlled, conducted, or participated in the conduct of,
in violation of 1 8 U.S.C. 1 962; and,

c.)
Any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which defendant
ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE,
III,
obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity in
violation of 1 8 U.S.C. 1 962.

369.
The interests of defendant ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE, III, subject to forfeiture
to the United States pursuant to Title 1 8, United States Code, Sections 1 963(a)(1 ), 1 963(a)(2),
and 1 963(a)(3), include, but are not limited to:
a.)
A sum of money equal to the total amount of proceeds obtained by defendant
ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE, III, as
result of his violation of 1 8 U.S.C. 1 962.
68
FORFEITURE UNDER I 8 U .S.C. 98 I(a)(I)(C) AND 2 8 U.S.C. 46 1(c)

370.
The allegations o f Counts 2 through I 4 are hereby realleged and incorporated
herein by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeiture pursuant to 1 8 U.S.C.
98 1 (a) ( l )(C)
and 28 U . S . C . 246 1 (c). As a result o f t he foregoing o ffenses, defendants AN HONY 0.

CALABRESE and SANFORD A . PRUDOFF shall forfeit to the United States
II property, real
and personal, which constitutes, or is derived from, proceeds traceable to the commission o f
Counts 2 through 1 4 ; including, but not limited to:
a.)
MONEY JUDGMENT: defendant ANTHONY 0 . CALABRESE shall forfeit
property, including, but not limited to, a sum o f money equal to the proceeds of
ounts 2
through 1 4.
b.)
MONEY JUDGMENT: defendant SANFORD A. PRUDOFF shal forfeit
property, including, but not limiteq to, a sum of money equal to the proceeds of
b ount
5.
SUBSTITUTE PROPERTY
371.
In the event that any property subject to forfeiture under 1 8 U.S.C 1 963(a)
and/or 1 8 U . S .C. 98 1 (a)( l )(C) and 28 U . S . C . 246 l (c), as a result of any act o omission of the
defendant(s):
a.)
cannot be located upon exercise of due diligence;
b.)
has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with a third party;
c. )
has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of this Court;
d. )
has been substantially diminished i n value; or,
e.)
has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without
difficulty,
69
it is the intent o f the United States, pursuant to 1 8 U . S . C . l 963(m) and/or 2 1
.S.C . 8 5 3(p )
[as incorporated by 28 U . S. C . 246 I (c)], to seek forfeiture o f any other prope
o f the
defendant(s), up to the value of the forfeitable property described above.
TRUE BILL
Original document -- Signatures on file with the Clerk o f Courts, pursuant to th -Government
Act o f 2002.
70

S Udge Jugent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

S Udge Jugent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:11-cr-00437-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/11 1 of 70.

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Title 18, United States Code

The Grand Jury charges:

Defendant ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE, III, ("CALABRESE") was an attorney

Case: 1:11-cr-00437-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/11 2 of 70. PageID #: 2

Defendant SANFORD A. PRUDOFF ("PRUDOFF") was employed as the

Cuyahoga County, Ohio ("County") was a government body whose departments

The Board of Cuyahoga County Commissioners ("County Commissioners") was

and was under the authority of the County Commissioners.

Case: 1:11-cr-00437-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/11 3 of 70. PageID #: 3

James C. "Jimmy" Dimora ("Dimora") was an elected County Commissioner

Case: 1:11-cr-00437-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/11 4 of 70. PageID #: 4

Kevin F. Payne ("Payne")(now deceased), served as the Chief of Staff at the

Alternatives Agency ("AA") was a non-profit organization that provided

Daniel P. Gallagher ("Gallagher") was employed in the Engineer's Office until he

retired in 2002. Thereafter, he served as a consultant, eventually forming a consulting company,

Case: 1:11-cr-00437-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/11 5 of 70. PageID #: 5

Brian Schuman ("Schuman") was an employee of AA in or around 2002, and

again from in or around 2006 to in or around 2009.

Paragraphs 1 - 1 7 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as

if fully set forth herein.

Business 9 was a construction company specializing in stone and brick masonry

located in Cleveland, Ohio. Business 9 was a client of Law Firm

Business 45 was a company that provided receivership services in state and

federal courts. In 2004, Business 45 was a client of Law Firm 1 .

At all times material to this Indictment, ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE, III, John

Defendant ANTHONY 0. CALABRESE, III participated in the operation and

management of the Enterprise.

Case: 1:11-cr-00437-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/11 6 of 70. PageID #: 6

Purposes of the Conspirators

financial benefit of CALABRESE, his co-conspirators, and his designees.

conspirators from public exposure and possible criminal prosecution.

Beginning in or around 200 1 and continuing to on or about February 2, 2009, the

18 U . S.C. 1 95 1 (Hobbs Act Extortion); and

Case: 1:11-cr-00437-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/11 7 of 70. PageID #: 7

1 8 U.S.C. 1 5 1 2 (Obstruction of Justice)

Case: 1:11-cr-00437-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/11 8 of 70. PageID #: 8

CALABRESE used and agreed to use his position of trust as an attorney to

influence clients' decisions to benefit Law Firm 1, CALABRESE, and CALABRESE's

At times, CALABRESE served as an intermediary between a public official and

benefit and the benefit of his conspirators and designees.

CALABRESE, Kelley, and other members of the conspiracy committed and

Schemes Related to Factual Allegations in this Indictment

of Counts 2- 1 4 of this Indictment.

Alternatives Agency Property Tax Rebate Scheme

In furtherance of this scheme:

CALABRESE used his position as an attorney at Law Firm 1 to assist AA with

obtaining property tax exempt status for the property AA leased.

Case: 1:11-cr-00437-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/11 9 of 70. PageID #: 9

In or around January 2004, CALABRESE asked Kelley if Kelley could assist in

AA obtaining tax exempt status on the property that AA leased.

relating to AA' s property taxes.

On or about July 1 5 , 2004, CALABRESE caused to be delivered via United States

mail to AA in Cleveland, Ohio, correspondence from the Ohio Department of Taxation,

On or about September 3 , 2004, CALABRESE caused to be delivered by the

On or about September 20, 2004, AA caused to be deposited the refund check.

On or about September 20, 2004, CALABRESE instructed BE39 to issue an AA

Case: 1:11-cr-00437-SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/11 10 of 70. PageID #: 10

On or about September 20, 2004, CALABRESE caused AA to issue check no.

On or about September 20, 2004, CALABRESE and Kelley delivered the AA

check issued to Business 45 to an agent of Business 45 .