Defendant Edward Filer, through his undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the indictment based on prosecutors’ intentional violation of Mr. Filer’s attorney- client privilege.

After Barsanti Woodwork filed for bankruptcy and the trustee issued document subpoenas in 2014, Freeborn & Peters’ General Counsel, Steven Hartmann was brought into the loop.

A year later, on July 6, 2015, Mr. Filer himself was served with a subpoena seeking documents as well as testimony of a Freeborn & Peters representative pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004.

In light of Mr. Filer’s prior objection and Judge Leinenweber’s ruling, it could not have been made any clearer to the government going forward that any conversation that took place between Mr. Hartmann and Mr. Filer after July 6, 2015 was protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Knowing that it intended to violate the clear boundaries set by Judge Leinenweber’s prior ruling about the application of the attorney- client privilege to conversations between Mr. Filer and Mr. Hartmann after June 6, 2015, the government stood silent.

Defendant Edward Filer, through his undersigned counsel, hereby moves this Court to continue the trial currently scheduled for January 21, 2025.

As the government itself emphasized in moving for a continuance, the need for a complete record—and a pre-trial ruling—on Mr. Filer’s motion was paramount given the character of the misconduct alleged and the inevitability of an appeal from the Court’s ruling, regardless of the outcome.

The government itself argued that the issues raised deserved a close examination of the newly disclosed record and the parties’ respective positions, even at the expense of a then- pending trial date.

Midland Asphalt, 489 U.S. at 800–01 (“deprivation of the right not to be tried satisfies the Coopers & Lybrand requirement of being ‘effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment’”) (citing Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977)).

By this motion, Mr. Filer seeks only to preserve his constitutional rights, and to allow this Court a meaningful opportunity to consider the misconduct at issue.

Defendant Edward Filer, through his undersigned counsel, respectfully requests a status hearing to discuss the pending motions to dismiss and other pretrial matters.

The parties are next scheduled to appear before the Court on January 14, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. for a pretrial conference.

Mr. Filer has filed two separate motions to dismiss the indictment based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023), and prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury.

The latter-filed motion involves Mr. Filer’s constitutional right not to be tried absent a validly obtained indictment.

Mr. Filer therefore respectfully requests an opportunity to discuss with the Court the potential impact of the motion on the timing of trial.

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.7.1.1 Eastern Division

Unopposed Motion for Entry of Preliminary Order of Forfeiture [466] is granted.

No appearance by Shradha Agarwal is needed at the 6/16/2023 Forfeiture Hearing.

If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

The following property is to be applied toward satisfaction of the personal money judgment: a. All right, title, and interest in Investment Fund A, held in the name of Jumpstart Ventures II, LLC, including, but not limited to, approximately $60,000.00 in capital contributions submitted on or around May 31, 2018; b.

Funds in the amount of $194,616.25 seized on July 8, 2021, and all remaining right, title, and interest in Investment Company C, held in the name of Jumpstart Ventures II, LLC, including, but not limited to, $50,000 in capital contributions submitted on or about January 5, 2017; y.

All right, title, and interest in Investment Fund O, held in the name of Jumpstart Ventures II, LLC, including, but not limited to, $158,879.00 in capital contributions submitted between August 8, 2016, and April 28, 2017; bb.

Specifically, the following accounts shall be liquidated and distributed as follows: a. All right, title, and interest in Investment Fund A, held in the name of Jumpstart Ventures II, LLC, including, but not limited to, approximately $60,000.00 in capital contributions submitted on or around May 31, 2018; b.

Funds in the amount of $194,616.25 seized on July 8, 2021, and all remaining right, title, and interest in Investment Company C, held in the name of Jumpstart Ventures II, LLC, including, but not limited to, $50,000 in capital contributions submitted on or about January 5, 2017; y.

Defendants and defendants’ counsel recognize that certain of the materials may contain communications subject to the attorney-client privilege arising from those clients’ representation by Girardi Keese.

Upon conclusion of all stages of this case, all of the materials and all copies made thereof shall be disposed of in one of three ways, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

The materials may be (1) destroyed; (2) returned to the United States; or (3) retained in defense counsel's case file.

The restrictions set forth in this Order do not apply to documents that are or become part of the public court record, including documents that have been received in evidence at other trials, nor do the restrictions in this Order limit defense counsel in the use of discovery materials in judicial proceedings in this case.

Nothing contained in this Order shall preclude any party from applying to this Court for further relief or for modification of any provision hereof.

Defendants and defendants’ counsel recognize that certain of the materials may contain communications subject to the attorney-client privilege arising from those clients’ representation by Girardi Keese.

Upon conclusion of all stages of this case, all of the materials and all copies made thereof shall be disposed of in one of three ways, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

The materials may be (1) destroyed; (2) returned to the United States; or (3) retained in defense counsel's case file.

The restrictions set forth in this Order do not apply to documents that are or become part of the public court record, including documents that have been received in evidence at other trials, nor do the restrictions in this Order limit defense counsel in the use of discovery materials in judicial proceedings in this case.

Nothing contained in this Order shall preclude any party from applying to this Court for further relief or for modification of any provision hereof.

Defendant, defendant’s counsel, and authorized persons shall not disclose any notes or records of any kind that they make in relation to the contents of the materials, other than to authorized persons, and all such notes or records are to be treated in the same manner as the original materials.

Upon conclusion of all stages of this case, all of the materials and all copies made thereof shall be disposed of in one of three ways, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

The materials may be (1) destroyed; (2) returned to the United States; or (3) retained in defense counsel’s case file.

The restrictions set forth in this Order do not apply to documents that are or become part of the public court record, including documents that have been received in evidence at other trials, nor do the restrictions in this Order limit defense counsel in the use of discovery materials in judicial proceedings in this case, except that any document filed by any party which attaches or otherwise discloses specially identified sensitive information as described in Paragraph 3, above, shall be filed under seal to the extent necessary to protect such information, absent prior permission from this Court.

Nothing contained in this Order shall preclude any party from applying to this Court for further relief or for modification of any provision hereof.

When faced with a similar argument, the Coe court pointed to the “well-established principle that statements of coconspirators before a defendant joins the conspiracy are nonetheless admissible against him.” 718 F.2d at 839; see also ...

A Sampling of the Evidence Presented to the Jury In early March of 2013, Harris Bank was days away from obtaining entry of a court order appointing a receiver over Barsanti Woodwork Corporation that would have spelled the end of the business.

When Gereg did thereafter reach a deal with Harris Bank to sell the defaulted loans, the assignee was to be an entity DEFENDANT caused to be created called BWC Holdings, that Kelly owned through the (non-existent) K Family Trust.

GX 33-A. That day, Harris Bank’s counsel informed Gereg that “[t]he Bank requires a corporate resolution for BWC Holdings, LLC before it can release the Assignment Agreement for signature (i.e., something that says you are a member thereof and have sole signing authority)” (GX 46) – the plan quickly changed.

An additional example of evidence of DEFENDANT’s knowledge that GEREG was a mere nominee for Kelly is that on July 13, 2013, after BWC Capital had obtained the inflated judgment against Barsanti Woodwork Corporation, defendant asked “if the Co. has any cash around to apply to at least some of the work that Tom, Ashley, Sam and now Vivek are doing.” GX 521.

Around the time that the Union Benefit Funds froze Barsanti Woodwork Corporation’s receivables with a citation to discover assets in May 2013, the entity was involuntarily dissolved by the State of Illinois for failure to pay taxes.

If called to testify at trial, a records custodian from Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP would state that they reviewed Filer Exhibit 154 and determined that it truly and accurately summarized the contents of bank statements and supporting documents from Barsanti Woodwork’s bank account at the National Bank, as described in the exhibit.

Those documents are voluminous admissible writings that cannot be conveniently examined in court.

They would also testify that they reviewed Filer Exhibit 155 and determined that it truly and accurately summarized the contents of bank statements and supporting documents from Barsanti Woodwork’s bank account at the National Bank, bank statements and supporting documents from Barsanti Millwork’s bank account at JP Morgan Chase, and a June 13, 2013 letter to Barsanti Woodwork from the Internal Revenue Service, as described in the exhibit.

Those documents are also voluminous admissible writings that cannot be conveniently examined in court.

United States Attorney Western District of Wisconsin Isl Jeffrey S. Snell

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, TIMOTHY M. O’SHEA, United States Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, respectfully requests that Judge Leinenweber’s May 27, 2021, ruling on one of the Government’s Supplemental Motions in Limine filed under seal at Dkt. 128 (with defendant’s response at Dkt. 132 and the government’s reply at Dkt. 136) be enforced as law of the case.

On June 17, 2021, Judge Leinenweber ruled: [Motion in limine] No. 7, which is preclude the defendant from introducing evidence of his minor daughter's medical condition as irrelevant.

To a limited extent, if Mr. Filer testifies, he may testify not -- obviously not that he -- not criminally liable because of it, but he could say -- testify that he was distracted, and so forth, that he might not have given quite as fine attempts as normal at -- had he not been encumbered.

If he doesn’t testify, the motion in limine is granted.

Assistant United States Attorneys

The government regrets that two of its counsel caused the circumstances where a witness stated during an interview the contents of communications that had previously been excluded from the first trial as subject to defendant Edward Filer’s attorney-client privilege.

The government respectfully submits that suppression of the privileged information is the appropriate remedy and acknowledges that the question of penalties to the individual prosecutors is a subject for another day.

By way of background, on March 21 and 29, 2017, then-AUSA Brian Netols interviewed Mr. Hartmann as part of the grand jury investigation concerning his actions coordinating Freeborn & Peters’ production of records in response to a subpoena issued to the firm by the bankruptcy trustee.

It was during this interview that Mr. Hartmann, accompanied by additional Freeborn & Peters’ counsel, informed the government that he had conversations with the defendant in his (Mr. Hartmann’s) capacity as an attorney coordinating the law firm’s production in response to the bankruptcy trustee’s records subpoena.

The following day, June 24, 2021, Judge Leinenweber, restricted the scope of Mr. Hartmann’s testimony to exclude defendant’s statements made to Mr. Hartmann after July 6, 2015, based on attorney-client privilege.

These prosecutors well understood the sensitivity involved in interviewing Mr. Filer’s attorney in preparation for the first trial—after all, they had charged Mr. Filer with multiple crimes related to the very matters he discussed with Mr. Hartmann.3 Despite being on notice, they did not put any safeguards in place and personally elicited attorney-client protected material they could not unhear.

4 The government, in a single sentence, claims the violation was not deliberate but was caused by their “failure to properly appreciate the full nature…and implications of same, and a failure to hereafter bring any questions about the scope of the ruling” to Judge Leinenweber or this Court.

When confronted with the Court’s reading of the situation, the prosecutors prevaricated, refused to answer direct questions from the Court, and, in at least one instance, contradicted each other’s statements about the factual circumstances of the privilege violation.

These are undoubtedly “drops in the bucket” to the jury, as this Court aptly noted in a different context, but this conduct evinces an ethos that is violative of Mr. Filer’s rights and contrary to the ethic of the office of the U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Illinois.

This Court regularly demonstrates inexhaustible patience with attorneys (the undersigned has tested and been the beneficiary of that trait) and litigants, as well as a proclivity to attribute good intentions to those who appear in its courtroom.

Report of Interview January 27, 2025 Report Type: Subject Name: Interview Date: Distribution: Case File Violations: Written By: Date Written: Office: Reviewed By: Approved By: January 27, 2025 Chicago,IL y Special On the morning of Monday, January 27, 2025, Steve Hartmann (“Hartmann”) wasinterview The interview AUSABrian Netols, AUSA Jeff Snell, took place at the U.S. Attorney's Office, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago,Illinois.

Hartmannnotedthat Bird lived and workedin Michigan herfirst few years at F&P, so he did not know what work she performed.

- This document maycontain patient medicalinformation protected underthe Privacy Act and/or Health Page 1 of 2

Hartmann did not ask, and Filer did not express, an opinion about whether or not certain documents should have been producedto the trustee in responseto the first subpoena.

Page 2 of 2 DISCLOSURE- This documentcontains neither recommendations norconclusions ofthe Office of Inspector General (OIG), unless approved by designated Headquarter officials.