i

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TJGEM, LLC Plaintiff Vs. Cause No 1:13-cv-00382-BAH REPUBLIC OF GHANA, ET AL Defendants

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT VANDERPUIJE

AND AGAINST DEFENDANT VANDERPUIJE’S COUNSEL AND LAW FIRM UNDER RULE 11(C) AND THE INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT

Table of Contents

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. i

Table of Authorities ......................................................................................................................... i

I Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1

A Adjetey Brothers Confirmed Vanderpuije Solicited Bribes & Forged Emails....... 2

II Statement of Facts............................................................................................................... 3

III Points, Authorities and Arguments ..................................................................................... 7

A The Court Has Authority to Impose Sanctions Under Rule 11 .............................. 7

B The Court Has Authority to Impose Sanctions Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 ............... 9

C The Court Has Inherent Power to Impose Sanctions ............................................ 10

D Ghanaian Defendants Joined Submission of Forged Emails ................................ 18

E Admissions of Adjetey Brothers........................................................................... 20

IV Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 21

Table of Authorities

Cases

*Baltia Air Lines, Inc. v. Transaction Mgmt.,Inc., 98 F.3d 640, 643-44 (D.C. Cir. 1996) .......... 14

*Breezevale LTD. v. Dickinson, 879 A.2d 957 (DC App. 2005)................................................... 8

ii

*Hickey v. Scott, 738 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2010) ................................................................... 17

*Margo v. Weiss, 213 F.3d 55,59 (2d Cir. 2000) ........................................................................... 9

*Shepherd v. American Broad. Cos., 62 F.3d 1469, 1472 D.C. Cir. 1995) ........................... 11, 14

*U.S. v Safavian, 435 F.Supp.2d. 36 (D.D.C. 2006)...................................................... 1, 5, 15, 16

Alexander v. FBI, 541 F. Supp. 2d 274, 302 (D.D.C. 2008) .................................................. 10, 11

Bulloch v. United States, 721 F.2d 713, 718 (10th Cir. 1983) ..................................................... 15

Chaudhrv v. Ksenzowski (In the Matter of Ksenzowski), 56 B.R. 819,835 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1985) ........................................................................................................................................... 9

Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990) 17

Cowelco Capital, Inc. v. General Consul of Bolivia, 940 F. Supp. 93,95-96 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ..... 9

First Bank of Marietta v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 115 F. Supp. 2d 898,904 (S.D. Ohio 2000) ......................................................................................................................................... 11

Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Banov, 899 F.2d 40, 46 (D.C.Cir.1990)................................................... 17

Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332, 1338 (5th Cir. 1978).................................................. 15

Scruggs v. Getinge USA, Inc., 258 F.R.D. 177, 180-81 (D.D.C.2009)........................................ 17

Sharp v. Rosa Mexicano, D.C., LLC, 496 F.Supp.2d 93, 100 (D.D.C.2007)............................... 17

United States v. Buck, 281 F.3d 1336, 1342 (10th Cir. 2002)...................................................... 15

United States v. Wallace, 964 F.2d 1214, 1219 (D.C. Cir. 1992) .......................................... 11, 13

Statutes

28 U.S.C. § 1927....................................................................................................................... 9, 10

Rules

Fed R. Civ. P. 11(b) ........................................................................................................................ 8

Fed R. Civ. P. 11(c) .................................................................................................................... 1, 8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11...................................................................................................................... 6, 17

1

I Introduction

This matter is before the court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions to be imposed

against the Defendant Vanderpuije and his defense counsels as well as said defense counsels’

law firm for submission of a false and fraudulent statement in a sworn declaration (ECF Doc

#51-3, pp. 1 & 2) and fraudulent and forged emails (ECF Doc #51-3, pp. 3 &4) in support of the

Ghanaian Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF Doc #51 main) the Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint. Plaintiff moved to exclude said emails from evidence for lack of

foundation as to authenticity. (ECF Doc #62) Defendant Vanderpuije responded that said emails

were authentic under the case of *U.S. v Safavian, 435 F.Supp.2d. 36 (D.D.C. 2006). (ECF Doc

#68) Plaintiff then replied that upon examination of said emails under the standards of the

Safavian case cited by Defendant, that the court should find that Defendant Vanderpuije had not

simply failed to lay a foundation that said emails were authentic, but the court must find that said

emails had been forged and were fraudulent (ECF Doc #75, pp. 10-20); and thus Defendant

Vanderpuije’s sworn statement as to the authenticity thereof was false and fraudulent as well.

Plaintiff followed up said Reply with a notice to the Ghanaian Defendants’ attorneys of the

Plaintiff’s intent to seek sanctions under Fed R. Civ. P. 11(c) against the Defendant Vanderpuije

and his defense counsels for submission of a false declaration and forged emails to the court.

(ECF Doc #78 and Exhibit 139) Defendant Vanderpuije’s defense counsels, tacitly admitting

that said declaration contained a false statement and that said emails are forged and fraudulent,

withdrew said false statement and forged emails from consideration by the court. (ECF Doc

#87)

The making of a false declaration and forging of said emails by Vanderpuije, and

Vanderpuije’s defense attorneys’ submission of said false declaration and forged emails to the

2

court, in support of Vanderpuije’s Motion to Dismiss, was a fraud upon the court, is especially

egregious, and therefore, the Plaintiff seeks sanctions against both the Defendant Vanderpuije,

for willful, wanton, intentional, purposeful and malicious conduct, and against his counsel, for

gross neglect and recklessness.

A Adjetey Brothers Confirmed Vanderpuije Solicited Bribes & Forged Emails

Plaintiff’s principals, Walton and Weaver, have had the opportunity to recently have

discussions with the Adjetey brothers, who had determined to be co-operative with the Plaintiff

in prosecution of this case. Jonathan Adjetey traveled all the way from Accra, Ghana and

Gideon Adjetey traveled from Chicago, Illinois, to St Louis, Missouri, in order to provide

evidence to Plaintiff in support of Plaintiff’s claims. During said discussions, Gideon Adjetey

advised that he has documentary proof that Vanderpuije solicited bribes; and moreover, Gideon

stated that he had wired monies through Western Union to Vanderpuije’s late wife, Giftie Naa

Adei Vanderpuije, after Vanderpuije promised Gideon and his brothers a subcontract as

consolation for awarding Conti the prime contract for reconstruction of the Accra sewer system.

Jonathan Adjetey, who has a personally hostile attitude toward Defendant Vanderpuije, stated

emphatically that he has not had and would never have any dealings with Defendant

Vanderpuije, at all, and certainly did not and would not provide him with the forged and

fraudulent copies of emails, bearing Jonathan’s email address in the main identity, that

Vanderpuije forged and fraudulently submitted to his defense attorneys for filing with the court.

These developments are clear and convincing evidence that Vanderpuije organized and led a

RICO conspiracy and enterprise, attempted to extort TJGEM into paying a bribe, and was

actually paid a bribe by one of his co-conspirators, Gideon Adjetey, and attempted to cover up

his attempted extortion as well as his actual extortion of bribes, leading to a reasonable inference

that the $10 million dollar inflated price that Ghana agreed to pay to Conti, over the price for the

3

sewer project fixed by TJGEM, was to be paid by Conti to Vanderpuije as a kickback bribe fee

for awarding Conti the Accra sewer system reconstruction contract.

Vanderpuije’s submission of a false declaration and forged documents will certainly

render his denials of extortion of bribes and kickbacks incredible to a DC jury. Add to this

Kwame’s incredible response to TJGEM’s counsel’s proposal to settle the case by Kwame being

awarded a $50 million dollar subcontract in which Kwame sent letters to Conti, Vanderpuije and

TJGEM distancing itself from TJGEM’s lawsuit and proposed settlement, that would benefit

Kwame to the tune of $50 million dollars, what jury is going to believe that Vanderpuije, Kwame

and Conti did not have a surreptitious deal for Kwame to provide construction management

services on the Accra sewer system reconstruction project?

With these revelations on the part of the Adjetey brothers and cracks in the Defendants’

wall, the dominos are about to fall, and the full and complete exposure of each and every

Defendants’ role in the RICO conspiracy and enterprise, fraud, misrepresentations, tortious

interference with business expectancy, misappropriation of TJGEM’s trade secrets, contract and

Letter of Interest, breach of fiduciary duties, and tortious inducement to breach fiduciary duties,

is but a matter of time as the Plaintiff engages in Discovery in its march to a judgment for

Plaintiff for $317,426,250.00, including punitive damages!

II Statement of Facts

On March 22, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an original Complaint with the court. The Plaintiff

named as party defendants, the Republic of Ghana, the Accra Metropolitan Assembly, and two

Ghanaian Presidential appointees, Kwabena Duffuor, the Minister of Finance of Ghana, and

Alfred O Vanderpuije, the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan District (the Ghanaian

4

Defendants) as well as Conti Construction Company, later substituted as Conti International,

LLC

Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the Defendant Vanderpuije organized and lead a RICO

conspiracy and enterprise, and among the predicate acts, in which the Defendant Vanderpuije

engaged, was the attempted extortion of Plaintiff into paying Vanderpuije a bribe in exchange for

Ghana and the AMA entering into a contract with Plaintiff for the reconstruction of the sewer

system of Accra.

On June 18, 2013, the Ghanaian Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s

Complaint. In support of said Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s original Complaint, the

Defendant Vanderpuije, in furtherance of said RICO conspiracy and enterprise, and in an effort

to cover up Vanderpuije’s attempt to extort TJGEM into paying a bribe, executed a Declaration,

under penalty of perjury, and attached thereto two exhibits, marked Exhibit 1 and 2, which

purported to be authentic emails in his possession, allegedly authored by two TJGEM associates,

Gideon Adjetey and Mark Adjetey, asserting that Vanderpuije had not solicited a bribe; and

Vanderpuije submitted said Declaration and said Exhibits to his defense counsels who in turn

submitted same to the court.

On July 24, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint and re-alleged, inter alia,

that the Defendant Vanderpuije organized and lead a RICO conspiracy and enterprise, and

among the predicate acts in which the Defendant Vanderpuije engaged was the attempted

extortion of Plaintiff into paying Vanderpuije a bribe in exchange for Ghana and the AMA

entering into a contract with Plaintiff for the reconstruction of the sewer system of Accra.

Plaintiff joined as party defendants, in said Amended Complaint, Gideon Adjetey, Mark Adjetey

5

and Jonathan Adjetey (the Adjetey Brothers) and Kwame Building Group, Anthony Thompson

and Craig Lucas (the Kwame Defendants).

On September 6, 2013, the Defendant Vanderpuije filed a Motion to Dismiss the

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. In support of said Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint, the Defendant Vanderpuije, in furtherance of said RICO conspiracy and

enterprise, and in an effort to cover up Vanderpuije’s attempt to extort TJGEM into paying a

bribe (as well as the extortion/bribery/kickback agreements and schemes of the Ghanaian

Defendants and Conti), once again executed a Declaration under penalty of perjury and attached

thereto the two exhibits, marked Exhibit 1 and 2, which purported to be authentic emails in his

possession, allegedly authored by two TJGEM associates, Gideon Adjetey and Mark Adjetey,

asserting that Vanderpuije had not solicited a bribe. In order to give the impression that Jonathan

Adjetey was confirming Gideon and Mark’s alleged assertion that Vanderpuije had not solicited

any bribes, said Exhibits had Jonathan’s email address in the main identity at the top of the

emails, which would indicate that Jonathan had printed said copies of said emails from his

computer or email box and provided same to Vanderpuije. (For a technical discussion of this

point, see pages 10-20, ECF Doc #75) Vanderpuije submitted said Declaration and said Exhibits

to his counsel who in turn submitted same to the court.

On October 7, 2013, pursuant to the grant of extension of time, the Plaintiff filed a

Motion to Strike said Exhibits on the grounds that the Defendant had failed to lay a foundation

that said emails were authenticate. On October 21, 2013, Defendant Vanderpuije filed a

Memorandum in Opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Vanderpuije’s Exhibits arguing

that said Exhibits were authenticated under the holding and standards for authenticating an email

cited in the case of, *U.S. v Safavian, 435 F.Supp.2d. 36 (D.D.C. 2006)

6

On October 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a memorandum in reply to the Defendant

Vanderpuije’s counsels’ memorandum in opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and

Exclude said Exhibits 1 and 2, in which the Plaintiff’ set forth evidence in support of a finding

that said Exhibits are fraudulent and forgeries, under the standards of the Safavian case; and

moreover, that Defendant Vanderpuije’s Declaration as to the authenticity of said Exhibits was

false and fraudulent as well. (See pages 10-20, ECF Doc #75)

After Plaintiff presented said evidence that said emails were forged, Defendants’ counsel

failed to withdraw, sua sponte, Vanderpuije’s Declaration and Exhibits, so on November 1, 2013,

Plaintiff, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), served a Motion for Sanctions on Defendant

Vanderpuije’s counsels on the grounds that the making of a false declaration and forging of said

emails by Vanderpuije, and Vanderpuije’s defense counsels’ submission of said false declaration

and forged emails to the court, in support of Vanderpuije’s Motion to Dismiss, was a fraud upon

the court, is especially egregious, and therefore, the Plaintiff would seek sanctions against the

Defendant Vanderpuije for willful, wanton, intentional, purposeful and malicious conduct, and

against his attorneys for gross neglect and recklessness, in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) As

provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), said Motion was not filed with the court to afford the

Ghanaian Defendant’s counsels the opportunity to withdraw said false statement and forged

emails.

On November 18, 2013, Defendant Vanderpuije’s counsel, tacitly acknowledging that

said emails, Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Vanderpuije Declaration, submitted by Vanderpuije to his

defense counsel and filed with the court, are forged and fraudulent; and, thus, withdrew, from

consideration by the court, said forged and fraudulent emails, Exhibits 1 and 2, as well as

7

withdrawing all references thereto in Defendant Vanderpuije’s Declarations and in the Ghanaian

Defendants Motions to Dismiss and Memoranda in Support thereof.

III Points, Authorities and Arguments

A The Court Has Authority to Impose Sanctions Under Rule 11

The making of a false declaration and forging of said emails by Vanderpuije, and

Vanderpuije’s defense counsel’s submission of said false declaration and forged emails to the

court, in support of Vanderpuije’s Motion to Dismiss, was a fraud upon the court, is especially

egregious, and therefore, the Plaintiff seeks sanctions against the Defendant Vanderpuije for

willful, wanton, intentional, purposeful and malicious conduct, and against his counsel for gross

neglect and recklessness.

Fed R. Civ. P. 11(b) states:

(b) REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

8

Thus, Fed R. Civ. P. 11(b) imposes an obligation on counsel to conduct a reasonable

inquiry prior to filing a Declaration and an Exhibit so as to ensure that the statements contained

in said Declaration are true and the Exhibit is a true and accurate document.

Exhibits 1 and 2 attached to Vanderpuije’s declaration are forged and fraudulent and

known by Vanderpuije to be forged and fraudulent, and Vanderpuije’s testimony offered to lay a

foundation for introduction of said Exhibits into evidence was likewise false. Vanderpuije’s

defense counsels could not have, in good faith, believed that said emails were authentic, under

the standards set in the Safavian case; moreover, upon reasonable inquiry and examination of

said Exhibits under the standards set by the Safavian case, Vanderpuije’s counsel would and

should have concluded that said emails were forged and fraudulent, and thus, that Vanderpuije’s

Declaration as to the authenticity of said emails was false and fraudulent as well. Therefore,

Vanderpuije’s counsel should not have offered said emails into evidence to the court in support

of their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

The Defendant Vanderpuije’s attorneys failed to exercise due diligence to determine the

authenticity of said Exhibits prior to offering said Exhibits in evidence to the court. *Breezevale

LTD. v. Dickinson, 879 A.2d 957 (DC App. 2005) Moreover, the Defendant Vanderpuije’s

counsels, having been alerted by the Plaintiff that said Exhibits are forgeries and fraudulent, had

an affirmative duty under Fed R. Civ. P. 11(c) to withdraw said Exhibits 1 and 2 from

consideration by the court, or, otherwise, subject themselves to severe penalties or sanctions by

the court. *Breezevale LTD. v. Dickinson, 879 A.2d 957 (DC App. 2005)

Most egregiously, Defendant Vanderpuije’s counsel’s initial filing of false, fraudulent

and forged emails, under the foundation of a false and fraudulent declaration, in light of the fact

that said Defense Counsels’ arguments that the authenticity of an email could be determined

9

under the standards of the Safavian case, is evidence that Vanderpuije’s Defense Attorneys were

grossly negligent and recklessly breached their professional responsibilities and duties, under

Fed R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1) and (2), when they failed to validate and verify the authenticity of said

emails and the truthfulness of Vanderpuije’s Declaration prior to filing same with the court.

Therefore, despite Defendant Vanderpuije’s defense attorneys’ withdrawal, from consideration

of the court, of said false, fraudulent and forged emails, and said false and fraudulent declaration

as foundation for introduction of said false, fraudulent and forged emails into evidence before the

court, Vanderpuije’s Defense Counsel should still be sanctioned by the court, though said

withdrawal may warrant a lesser penalty than would ordinarily be imposed by the court.

An attorney's filing of an affidavit that he knows, or should know after a reasonable

investigation and inquiry, to be false, violates Fed R. Civ. P. 11(b). *Margo v. Weiss, 213 F.3d

55,59 (2d Cir. 2000) (client and his attorney sanctioned under Rule 11 for filing "false affidavits .

. . motivated by a desire to prolong what had become objectively baseless litigation"); Cowelco

Capital, Inc. v. General Consul of Bolivia, 940 F. Supp. 93,95-96 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (attorney

ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11 for filing his own

affidavit that misquoted a lease in a misleading way); Chaudhrv v. Ksenzowski (In the Matter of

Ksenzowski), 56 B.R. 819,835 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1985) (sanctions imposed upon attorney under

Rule 11 for, inter alia, filing false affidavit of service; the court stated, "[counsel] has shown

himself indifferent to the accuracy of the representations he makes to this Court").

B The Court Has Authority to Impose Sanctions Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927

The Plaintiff requests sanctions against Vanderpuije Defense counsel also under 28

U.S.C. § 1927. “Any attorney . . .who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably

10

and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses,

and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (2008) .

“[U]nintended, inadvertent or even negligent conduct will not support an assessment of

fees and costs under Section 1927.” Alexander v. FBI, 541 F. Supp. 2d 274, 302 (D.D.C. 2008).

Negligence and careless mistakes do not rise to the level of “vexatious.” Id. at 303. However,

recklessness does rise to the level of “vexatious.” However, recklessness is “a high threshold . .

. [which] requires deliberate action in the face of a known risk, the likelihood or impact of which

the actor inexcusably underestimates or ignores.” Id. at 302 Vexatious behavior must be

demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence to justify an award of sanctions. Id.

Defense counsel under the facts of the case at bar was not simply negligent and careless,

but was grossly negligent and reckless; and thus the imposition of sanctions against Defendant

Vanderpuije’s Defense Attorney’s are warranted under the facts and law.

C The Court Has Inherent Power to Impose Sanctions

As to Defendant Vanderpuije, who is represented by an Attorney, if Fed R. Civ. P. 11(b)

does not apply, the Court still has inherent authority to sanction Defendant Vanderpuije. Even

though the Defendant Vanderpuije’s attorneys have withdrawn said forged emails, Exhibits 1

and 2, and said false declaration, that does not relieve Defendant Vanderpuije of his personal

responsibility and culpability for willfully, intentionally, purposefully, and with malice

aforethought, in furtherance of said RICO conspiracy and enterprise and in an effort to cover up

Vanderpuije’s attempt to extort TJGEM into paying a bribe (as well as his attempt to cover up

the extortion/bribery/kickback agreements and schemes of the Ghanaian Defendants and Conti),

filing false and fraudulent documents and declarations with the court, in the first place. Thus,

Defendant Vanderpuije should still be personally sanctioned by the court for submission of

11

forged and fraudulent exhibits and a false declaration to the court. (The same is true for

Vanderpuije’s defense attorneys.)

Imposition of sanctions under either 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or under the Court’s inherent

powers requires a showing by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant Vanderpuije acted

vexatiously or in bad faith with the intent to deceive the Court. *Shepherd v. Am. Broad. Cos.,

62 F.3d 1469, 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Alexander v. FBI, 541 F. Supp. 2d 274, 302 (D.D.C. 2008).

Bad faith requires intentional misconduct, aimed to defraud or deceive the Court. United States

v. Wallace, 964 F.2d 1214, 1219 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

A Defendant’s submission of a Declaration, that is false, in support of Exhibits, that are

forged, false and fraudulent, as to a material fact, is certainly litigation misconduct that the Court

has inherent authority to punish by imposing appropriate sanctions. *Shepherd v. American

Broad. Cos., op. cit. (district courts have "inherent power" to sanction attorneys or parties for

"litigation misconduct"); First Bank of Marietta v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 115 F. Supp.

2d 898,904 (S.D. Ohio 2000) ("A district court may award sanctions pursuant to its inherent

powers when bad faith occurs").

The statements in Vanderpuije’s June and September, 2013 declarations are false and

fraudulent and were directly intended, by Vanderpuije, to be a fraud upon the court, in that

Vanderpuije made said false Declaration and prepared said forged emails, for purposes of

asserting a defense in the case at bar, and in order to present favorable “evidence” to the court

and to give credibility to his denial of the Plaintiff’s assertion that Vanderpuije had attempted to

extort the Plaintiff into paying a bribe. Further, Vanderpuije’s purpose in forging said

documents was to show that three out of the five persons, who had been associated with Plaintiff

TJGEM, and thus who should have had knowledge of any attempted extortion efforts by

12

Vanderpuije, had denied in the forged emails not that they had no knowledge of any extortion

efforts by Vanderpuije, but that he made no such extortion efforts. That is, Vanderpuije’s

forging said emails was an attempt to show the court that the associates of TJGEM categorically

were not solicited to pay a bribe; and, moreover, the alleged authors of said emails (Gideon and

Mark Adjetey) affirmatively asserted that the Plaintiff’s General Counsel, Elbert Walton’s,

allegation that Vanderpuije had solicited a bribe was false and fraudulent! Furthermore, by

submission of said fraudulent emails to the court, as well as to Plaintiff’s counsel, the Defendant

Vanderpuije and his counsel was representing to the court that said witnesses, Gideon and Mark

Adjetey, would also so testify at trial. Thus, the Ghanaian Defendants were attempting to show

to the court as well as Plaintiff’s counsel a weakness in Plaintiff’s claims of attempted extortion

and extortion.

So emboldened by the assertions in said forged emails that Defendant Vanderpuije had

not solicited a bribe, Defendant Vanderpuije’s defense attorney’s made disparaging remarks

about the Plaintiff and its complaining members, Walton and Weaver, as well as Plaintiff’s

counsel that the Plaintiff’s claim was meritless, in that the three Adjetey brothers had

affirmatively asserted in the past and would affirmatively testify in the future that Vanderpuije

had not solicited a bribe! To quote Vanderpuije’s defense attorneys:

“These emails confirm that other TJGEM principals reject Mr. Walton’s accusations against the Mayor, and believe that his accusations were ‘wild claims’ designed to cover Mr. Walton’s own shortcomings. TJGEM’s internal dysfunction confirms that not selecting TJGEM was the right decision.” (See Page 16 of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Ghana Government Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint filed on June 18, 2013 (Docket No. 20-1))

“These emails confirm that other TJGEM principals reject the accusations against the Mayor made by Mr. Walton (who is apparently driving this lawsuit), and characterize his accusations as “wild claims” designed to cover Mr. Walton’s own shortcomings. (In retribution for these candid comments, TJGEM has now made Mark and Adjetey defendants in this action.) TJGEM’s internal

13

dysfunction confirms that the selection of Conti was the right decision.” (See, Page 19 of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Ghana Government Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed on September 6, 2013 (Docket No. 51-1))

Vanderpuije’s defense attorneys must now “eat crow” in that they too have been

victimized by Vanderpuije’s fraudulent misrepresentations – fraudulent misrepresentations that

Vanderpuije’s defense attorneys, like TJGEM’s principals, relied on to their detriment.

Vanderpuije has fraudulently induced his Defense attorneys into submitting false statements and

forged exhibits to the court, at the risk of sullying said defense counsels’ professional reputations

as well as that of the law firm to which they are associated; as well as permanently and

completely damaging Vanderpuije’s credibility as a witness in his own defense. (We note

however that it was defense counsels’ own arrogance, gross neglect and recklessness, in not

validating the authenticity of said forged emails, before filing them with the court, that resulted

in their ultimate submission of said false statement and forged emails to the court.) Accordingly,

Vanderpuije (and his Defense attorneys) violated Rule 1l(b)(3), which prohibits baseless factual

contentions or allegations.

Additionally, the false or misleading statements were made for an improper motive in

violation of Rule 1l(b)(l). Vanderpuije made those false and fraudulent statements in order to

further the RICO conspiracy and enterprise, in an attempt to cover up the fact that he had

solicited or attempted to extort bribes, and thereby defeat the Plaintiff’s claims, in the case at bar,

and thus needlessly increasing the cost of litigation. To invoke the court’s inherent authority to

assess attorney’s fees and expenses, Plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence that

Vanderpuije himself knowingly and intentionally misled the Court by providing false facts, in his

June and September, 2013 Declarations, in bad faith. United States v. Wallace, 964 F.2d 1214,

1219 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

14

In assessing Vanderpuije's conduct and the appropriate sanctions, his willfulness and bad

faith should be considered. Monetary penalties may be awarded if the district court provides a

“specific, reasoned explanation for rejecting lesser sanctions.” *Shepherd v. American Broad.

Cos., op. cit.. Vanderpuije’s false and fraudulent statements are not an accident or mistake

caused by ignorance. First, the subject matter of the misrepresentation is a fact (the authenticity

of an email that was allegedly sent directly to Vanderpuije) that was particularly within his own

personal knowledge. Second, he not only submitted said false and fraudulent declaration and

said forged and fraudulent emails in support of the June, 2013 Motion to Dismiss, he submitted

them again in support of the September, 2013 Motion to Dismiss. Since one of the emails was

allegedly sent to his own email address, he must be deemed to have been aware of the truth, for

he did not produce and submit to the court any emails that had been sent to him directly, but

instead submitted (forged) emails that had been allegedly forward to third parties.

Even though Vanderpuije’s attorneys have now withdrawn Vanderpuije’s false

declaration and said forged emails (after Plaintiff made a showing that said emails were false,

fraudulent and forged and noticed Vanderpuije’s defense counsel of Plaintiff’s intent to file a

Motion for Sanctions for submission of said false declarations and forged emails) Vanderpuije’s

conduct, in forging said emails and submitting same to his attorneys for filing with the court, was

so egregious and such a fraud upon the court, that monetary penalties and sanctions against

Vanderpuije, personally, is warranted under the facts and circumstances, as well as the law, set

forth above.

Fraud on the court is not demonstrated simply or solely by fraudulent documents, false

statements or perjury. *Baltia Air Lines, Inc. v. Transaction Mgmt.,Inc., 98 F.3d 640, 643-44

(D.C. Cir. 1996) Fraud on the court is “‘fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself

15

and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury.’” Id. at

643 (quoting Bulloch v. United States, 721 F.2d 713, 718 (10th Cir. 1983)). Behavior

constituting fraud on the court has been held to include bribery of a judge, knowing participation

of an attorney in the showing of perjured testimony, or fabrication of evidence by a party. Id.;

United States v. Buck, 281 F.3d 1336, 1342 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting Rozier v. Ford Motor Co.,

573 F.2d 1332, 1338 (5th Cir. 1978)). It was the latter two items, on Defendant Vanderpuije’s

counsels part, and on the part of Defendant Vanderpuije himself, that constituted fraud upon the

court. Vanderpuije fabricated evidence – two emails absolving him of the accusations that he

had attempted to extort TJGEM into paying a bribe. Moreover, his attorneys’ smugly and

arrogantly showed said perjured statements and forged emails to the court, without even having

pre-examined said emails for authenticity under the standards of the very case (*U.S. v Safavian,

op. cit.) upon which they relied in asserting to the court that said emails were authentic! Surely,

such reckless conduct and gross negligence on the part of Vanderpuije’s defense attorneys

warrants sanctions to be imposed upon both Vanderpuije and his defense counsels.

A finding of fraud on the court must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that

Vanderpuije himself acted in bad faith. Shepherd, 62 F.3d at 1476. “‘[F]raud on the court,’

whatever else it embodies, requires a showing that one has acted with an intent to deceive or

defraud the court.” For what other reason would the organizer and leader of a RICO conspiracy

and enterprise submit such false statements and forged emails but to deceive and defraud the

court into believing that he is innocent of the charge of extortion and attempted extortion of

bribes, and has three witnesses to back him up!

Furthermore, negligence and careless mistakes do not rise to the level of “vexatious.”

Alexander, 541 F. Supp. 2d at 303. The courts are clear that an attorney who makes a “‘mistake

16

in professional judgment’” should not be penalized under 28 U.S.C. § 1928. Id. at 302. Due to

the penal nature of Section 1927 awards, “Section 1927 requires a ‘clear showing’ that the

responsible individual acted unreasonably and vexatiously before a sanction may be assessed.”

Id. at 303. Plaintiff thus would argue that this is not a case of mistake in professional judgment;

but that this is a clear case of gross and reckless professional incompetence or indifference to

Vanderpuije’s attorney’s to seek the truth! The Ghanaian’s Defense Counsels acted

unreasonably and vexatiously and with gross negligence and recklessness in that they cited the

court and Plaintiff’s counsel to the case of Safavian, op. cit. for the proposition that the emails

submitted by Vanderpuije were authentic; yet they did not examine said emails under the

Safavian standards to test said emails authenticity before submitting said emails in evidence to

the court. That is not simple negligence or a mistake in professional judgment; that is clearly

and convincingly recklessness and gross neglect of their professional duty to employ the very

tools that defense counsel themselves asserted that the court should employ in order to determine

whether or not said false, fraudulent and forged emails were authentic. Plaintiff’s counsel met

his professional responsibilities under Rule 11. He along with Plaintiff’s General Counsel read

the Safavian case cited by the Ghanaian defendants and the standards established by the court to

adjudge whether or not an email was authentic, and then analyzed said emails, in consultation

with said General Counsel and IT expert, in order to adjudge whether or not said emails

submitted by Vanderpuije were authentic. Plaintiff’s General Counsel, who is quite computer

literate and has certain IT expertise on his own, and IT expert, Plaintiff’s President Weaver, upon

examining said emails under the Safavian standards, immediately determined that the email

marked Exhibit 1 was forged – just from reviewing the “to” “from” email addresses in the three

address blocks on Exhibit 1. (See pages 10-20, ECF Doc #75 for Plaintiff’s complete analysis

17

upon which the emails were found to be forgeries) Defense counsel should have done no less;

they obviously did not and should be sanctioned by the court for gross neglect of professional

duty and recklessness in failing to detect and thwart Vanderpuije’s attempt to perpetrate a fraud

upon the court.

In *Hickey v. Scott, 738 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2010) the court held:

"Rule 11 imposes a duty on attorneys to certify that they have conducted a reasonable inquiry and have determined that any papers filed with the court are well-grounded in fact, legally tenable, and not interposed for any improper purpose." Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). ***

Rule 11 permits courts to award sanctions for violations of Rule 11(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1) ("If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation."). "`The test [for sanctions] under Rule 11 is an objective one: that is, whether a reasonable inquiry would have revealed that there was no basis in law or fact for the asserted claim. The Court must also take into consideration that Rule 11 sanctions are a harsh punishment, and what effect, if any, the alleged violations may have had on judicial proceedings.'" Scruggs v. Getinge USA, Inc., 258 F.R.D. 177, 180-81 (D.D.C.2009) (quoting Sharp v. Rosa Mexicano, D.C., LLC, 496 F.Supp.2d 93, 100 (D.D.C.2007) ).

As to what sanctions should be granted, the court in Hickey observed:

There remains the question of what sanctions are appropriate in this case. Rule 11 sanctions "must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4). "The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation." Id. Courts possess "virtually untrammeled" discretion in fixing the amount of sanctions to be imposed for Rule 11 violations, provided that the sanctions are "appropriate to the facts of the case." Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Banov, 899 F.2d 40, 46 (D.C.Cir.1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). Id, at 73

*** the Court concludes that the appropriate sanction is to require Hickey to pay for Scott's reasonable attorney's fees incurred—following the completion of discovery—in defending against those counterclaims. Hickey must also pay for Scott's reasonable attorney's fees incurred in seeking these sanctions. Id, at 74

18

D Ghanaian Defendants Joined Submission of Forged Emails

In that the Ghanaian Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Memoranda in Support thereof,

Declarations and Exhibits were filed jointly by the Ghanian Defendants, Defendants Ghana,

AMA and Duffuor, should be held by the court to have joined with Defendant Vanderpuije in the

submission of fraudulent and forged emails to support the false and fraudulent allegations in the

Declaration of Defendant Vanderpuije. Thus, this was an attempt, not just by Vanderpuije but by

all of the Ghanaian Defendants, in furtherance of their RICO conspiracy and enterprise, to cover

up and to deny the extortion efforts and attempts by Defendant Vanderpuije to extort a bribe

from the Plaintiff and the managers of TJGEM, i.e., Walton and Weaver; as well as efforts to

deny the extortion/bribery/kickback agreements and schemes of the Ghanaian Defendants and

Conti.

On multiple occasions, while litigating the case at bar, the Ghanaian Defendants (and

Defendant Conti, who too should be withdrawing their co-submission of Vanderpuije’s forged

emails and false declarations) have filed with the court, as evidence or proof that Defendant

Vanderpuije did not attempt to extort TJGEM and its members into paying a bribe, the forged

email documents attached to Vanderpuije’s false Declaration. They have done so in an effort to

cover up their RICO conspiracy and enterprise. Said emails were specifically forged by

Defendant Vanderpuije and filed with the court in an effort to cover up the extortion attempts of

Defendant Vanderpuije as well as to deflect the allegations that Vanderpuije extorted Conti into

agreeing to kickback $10 million dollars to Vanderpuije in exchange for Conti being awarded a

$595 million dollar sewer reconstruction contract. (Also, said forged emails that were submitted

by the Ghanaian Defendants to the court could also be presented to the Office of Inspector

General (OIG) of the U.S. Ex-Im Bank by the Ghanaian Defendants and Conti to serve as

evidence in support of their denial of any corruption or extortion/bribery on their part.) (The

19

OIG has two (2) investigations concerning whether or not the Ghanaian Defendants and Conti

engaged in corruption and extortion/bribery/kickback schemes regarding Conti’s

$595,000,000.00 dollar request that Ghana be granted a loan to finance the Accra sewer system

reconstruction project.)

Each and all of the Ghanaian Defendants, as well as their co-defendants, joined together,

under the common purposes and ways of the RICO conspiracy and RICO enterprise in an effort

to achieve through fraud, extortion and attempted extortion, as well as misappropriation of the

Plaintiff’s trade secrets, contract and Letter of Interest, a loan from the U.S. Ex-Im Bank to

finance the Accra Sewer Project.

The Ghanaian (as well as the Conti Defendant) submitted and referenced the forged

emails not by mistake, inadvertence, or oversight, but in a deliberate, calculated, wanton, and

malicious effort to give credibility to and support for their respective separate Motions to

Dismiss, and to wrongly influence the court decisions thereon by asserting to the court that they

have witnesses who had stated in the past and who would testify in the future that there were no

extortion attempts or extortion of bribes and kickbacks schemes committed by the Ghanaian

Defendants and Conti.

The Ghanaian Defendants (and Conti’s) submissions of forged emails go beyond

developing evidence for a jury to consider the credibility of the Plaintiff's members -- given

Ghana and Conti’s assertion that said members were allegedly disappointed for not receiving a

construction contract that they never solicited. (TJGEM solicited a Development contract from

the Ghanaian Defendants, not a construction contract. The provisions in the contracts submitted

by TJGEM to Ghana and the AMA did not provide for Plaintiff to construct anything, but instead

20

provided that Plaintiff would seek competitive bids from general contractors to accomplish the

construction work on the Accra Sewer Reconstruction Project.)

E Admissions of Adjetey Brothers

Vanderpuije’s forged emails attempted to demonstrate that all three Adjetey brothers had

abandoned the Plaintiff because of the alleged "bribery lies against the Mayor" by Plaintiff’s

Vice-President and General Counsel, Walton. Defendant Vanderpuije submitted forged emails,

whose main identity indicated that they had been printed from Jonathan Adjetey’s inbox,

knowing full well that he and Jonathan Adjetey have a hostile relationship or no relationship at

all, and that Vanderpuije and Jonathan Adjetey have never had any direct or indirect

communications or dealings on anything including but not limited to the Accra sewer system

reconstruction project. After Jonathan Adjetey traveled over 5,000 miles from Accra, Ghana to

St. Louis, Missouri, and in the meeting between Plaintiff’s managers, Walton and Weaver, and

Gideon and Jonathan Adjetey, Jonathan Adjetey categorically denied he had printed out from his

email box and delivered any copies of any emails to Vanderpuije or anyone else for delivery to

Vanderpuije; and definitely did not deliver any copies of emails to Vanderpuije or anyone else

for deliver to Vanderpuije. Certainly then there is no way for Vanderpuije to have received any

emails printed from Jonathan’s email box. Thus, Jonathan, whose email address is listed in the

main identity of the forged emails submitted by Vanderpuije to the courts, has made it crystal

clear that said emails were not printed from his email box and thus are forgeries!

Moreover, in the St. Louis meeting, Gideon Adjetey stated to Walton and Weaver that he

had documents that will confirm that the Mayor had solicited bribes from the Plaintiff or its

associates. Finally, Gideon, not understanding the implications of his revelations, reported

wiring funds, through Western Union, to Vanderpuije’s late wife, Giftie – the only reasonable

inferences being that Gideon laundered bribe payments to Vanderpuije by and through

21

Vanderpuije’s wife. Gideon stated that Vanderpuije had promised Gideon that he was going to

award Gideon and his brothers a subcontract as consolation for failing to award TJGEM the

Accra sewer system reconstruction contract; and Gideon expressed disappointment that the

Mayor had not honored his promise despite the fact that Gideon had wired funds to

Vanderpuije’s wife. Thus, Plaintiff also has extrinsic evidence that said emails were forged.

IV Conclusion

For the reasons cited above, for violation of Fed R. Civ. P. 11(b), the Plaintiff moves this

Honorable court under Fed R. Civ. P. 11(c) to grant the Plaintiff sanctions against the defendant

Vanderpuije, Defendant Vanderpuije’s Defense Counsel and said Defense Counsel’s Firm,

including but not limited to:

(1) an award to the Plaintiff reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in

bringing (a) the motion to strike and exclude said Exhibits 1 and 2 from consideration by the

court, (b) the preparation of a memorandum in support thereof, (c) preparation of a memorandum

in opposition to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to Defendant Vanderpuije, and (d) in

bringing this motion for sanctions to the court,

(2) censure Defense Counsel for gross negligence, recklessness and unprofessional

conduct in violation of Fed R. Civ. P. 11(b), and

(3) for purposes of impeaching the credibility of Defendant Vanderpuije, granting

Plaintiff leave to read and introduce into evidence at trial the Court’s Order finding that

Defendant Vanderpuije, in a fraud upon the court, and in furtherance of Defendant Vanderpuije’s

RICO conspiracy and enterprise, and in attempt to cover up his attempt to extort the Plaintiff into

paying a bribe (and to cover up the extortion/bribery/kickback agreements and schemes of the

Ghanaian Defendants and Conti) in order to be awarded a contract for reconstruction of the

22

Accra sewer system, made and submitted to the court false and fraudulent declarations and

submitted false, fraudulent and forged Exhibits or emails to the court that falsely and

fraudulently denied that Vanderpuije solicited or attempted to extort bribes from Plaintiff.

Respectfully submitted Attorney for Plaintiff

MICHAEL LASLEY & ASSOCIATES By: /s/Michael Lasley

Michael Lasley District Court Bar # 223701

1629 K St NW Ste 300 Washington, DC 20006

Voice: 202-508-3690 Fax: 301-464-3796

Email: MGLasley@AOL.COM

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: By signature below, I hereby certify that: the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court to be served by operation of

the Court’s electronic filing system upon the following • Attorneys of record for the Ghanaian group of defendants • Attorneys of record for the Conti Group of defendants • Attorneys of record for the Kwame group of defendants and on the same date that the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of the Court, the

foregoing was also emailed to the following non-participants in Electronic Case Filing: • Gideon Adjetey, gideonad@aol.com • Mark Adjetey, madjetey@aol.com • Jonathan Adjetey, vivagents@hotmail.com

By: /s/Michael Lasley