JUDGE: Beatrice Butchko Sanchez Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Plaintiff(s) vs. INSURANCE AUCTIONS, LLC et al Defendant(s) ____________________________/

GSA shall make reasonable efforts to obtain any responsive documents and must produce Case No: 2021-021622-CA-01 Page 1 of 3

GSA shall also make reasonable efforts to obtain any responsive documents and must produce responsive credit card statements for all accounts used or access by GSA during the Pertinent Time Period, PayPal statements for all accounts used or accessed by GSA during the Pertinent Time Period, and documents sufficient to identify all payments GSA received which are in its possession, custody, or control as requested in Request for Production Number 3 (“RFP 3”), Request for Production Number 4 (“RFP 4”), and Request for Production Number 5 (“RFP 5”).

For any account which Individual Defendant Merkourios Alexopoulos was the signatory or had access to, Individual Defendant Merkourious Alexopoulos is deemed to have control over the documents and is required to take all necessary steps obtain the requested records from the bank, credit card company, and PayPal.

ET on July 11, 2024, counsel for GSA shall prepare, have Individual Defendant Merkourios Alexopoulos execute, and provide a release to Plaintiff’s counsel for any consumer records and/or other transactional or financial records (including but not limited to, customer history of bids, sales, deposits, refunds, communications, etc.) held by any website server, including but not limited to the HostDime server identified by Individual Defendant Merkourios Alexopoulos at the hearing, which was utilized by any Corporate Defendant at any time during the Pertinent Time Period.

Considering this guidance, the Court concluded that giving an “official action” instruction that circumscribed the relevant action for § 666 and the state law bribery predicates would protect Burke’s due process and free speech concerns under McDonnell.

There was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Burke, an alderman, contacted Scudiero and Frydland, CDOB officials, intending to advise them, or pressure them, to reevaluate a closed denial of a pole sign permit over which they had power.

Relying on the August 30, 2017 email and phone call to Cui regarding legal business, the jury found that, under both Counts Fifteen and Sixteen, Burke committed bribery (720 ILCS 5/33-1(d), (e)), official misconduct, and commercial bribe receiving.

The act, however, did not have to “ever be performed.” (Id.) The evidence presented, as outlined in Count Eleven, supra pp. 6–7, 32–34, was sufficient for the jury to reasonably find that Burke accepted the property appeal work with the knowledge that Cui retained him to get the pole sign permit.

The jury could infer that Burke, using his official position, contacted Powers and Murphy as an attempt to exert pressure or advise on the water service approvals for 601W, knowing or intending his call would form the basis of their decisions.

Before trial, the government filed a notice of its intent to seek an enhanced sentence due to Chavez’s prior state felony drug convictions.

But where Chavez bears the burden of establishing extraordinary and compelling circumstances, he does not point to other defendants who received lower sentences to flesh out this argument.

Chavez held a leadership position in an organized criminal enterprise, gave orders to subordinates, and engaged in activities that reflected deliberation and calculation.

He has maintained a clean disciplinary record, participated in prison programming, and attaches numerous letters from family, friends, and a BOP nurse attesting to his character.

Among other tasks, he carried out directives from his superiors in the drug trafficking conspiracy, including ordering a shooting of an innocent person who sped through his chapter’s territory.

JUDGE: Beatrice Butchko Sanchez Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Plaintiff(s) vs. INSURANCE AUCTIONS, LLC et al Defendant(s) ____________________________/

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Corporate Defendant Insurance Auctions, Inc. to Provide Complete Financial Records from Astoria Bank in Response to Request for Production of Documents #2 or in the Alternative, Compel Merkourious Alexopoulos to Authorize Astoria Bank to Release the Financial Records Directly to Plaintiff (Docket Number 233) (“Motion to Compel”), and and having heard arguments of counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Insurance Auctions Inc. and the Individual Defendant Merkourios Alexopoulos at the hearing on May 14, 2024, to which all parties appeared via Zoom teleconference, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

Within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, Insurance Auctions Inc. shall produce the requested Astoria Bank financial records, including, but not limited to, bank account statements, account opening applications and supporting documentation, signatory documents and any other document that identifies an authorized user for any Astoria Bank account by accessing and printing the records from the Astoria Bank online account.

Alternatively, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order and so that Plaintiff may Case No: 2021-021622-CA-01 Page 1 of 3

obtain the requested financial records directly from Astoria Bank, the Individual Defendant Merkourious Alexopoulos shall execute the Authorization Form (attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Docket Number 233, and will again be provided to Individual Defendant’s counsel) and send the executed original to Plaintiff’s counsel via FedEx or other certified mail.

JUDGE: Beatrice Butchko Sanchez Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Plaintiff(s) vs. INSURANCE AUCTIONS, LLC et al Defendant(s) ____________________________/

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Rule 1.310(b)(6) Corporate Representative Depositions and upon agreement of counsel, the Motion is hereby

Independent depositions of the corporate representative(s) of each of the Corporate Defendants, Insurance Auctions, LLC f/k/a GSA Auctions, LLC (“GSA”), Online Insurance Auctions, Inc. (“OIA”), My Dealer Auction Corporation (“MDA”), Insurance Auctions Inc. (“IAI”), EZ Haul Inc (“EZH”), I Bid Live Inc (“IBL”), and Online Payment Solutions (“OPS”) will be held at the Office of the Attorney General, 1 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 900, Miami, Florida 33131, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on the following dates:

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 9th day of May, 2024.

No Further Judicial Action Required on THIS MOTION

JUDGE: Beatrice Butchko Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Plaintiff(s) vs. INSURANCE AUCTIONS, LLC et al Defendant(s) ____________________________/

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Rule 1.310(b)(6) Corporate Representative Depositions and upon agreement of counsel, the Motion is hereby

Independent depositions of the corporate representative(s) of each of the Corporate Defendants, Insurance Auctions, LLC f/k/a GSA Auctions, LLC (“GSA”), Online Insurance Auctions, Inc. (“OIA”), My Dealer Auction Corporation (“MDA”), Insurance Auctions Inc. (“IAI”), EZ Haul Inc (“EZH”), I Bid Live Inc (“IBL”), and Online Payment Solutions (“OPS”) will be held at the Office of the Attorney General, 1 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 900, Miami, Florida 33131, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on the following dates:

Tuesday, June 18, 2024; and, if an alternative date is required

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 29th day of February, 2024.

JUDGE: Beatrice Butchko Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Plaintiff(s) vs. INSURANCE AUCTIONS, LLC et al Defendant(s) ____________________________/

The Stipulation of Substitution of Counsel is affirmed by the Court.

Law Offices of Anthony Accetta, P.A. and Anthony Accetta, Esq., Florida Bar No. 148318, shall be substituted as attorneys for the Corporate Defendants, INSURANCE AUCTIONS, LLC f/k/a GSA AUCTIONS, LLC, ONLINE INSURANCE AUCTIONS, INC., MY

LIVE INC, and ONLINE PAYMENT SOLUTIONS INC., in place of the Law Offices of Aaron Resnick, P.A., including Aaron Resnick, Esq., Jillian Postal, Esq. and Michael Greenberg, Esq. Case No: 2021-021622-CA-01 Page 1 of 2

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 29th day of February, 2024.

Nonetheless, Dr. Neuschatz would avoid definitive opinions about Andrews’s memory.

JUDGE: Beatrice Butchko Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Plaintiff(s) vs. INSURANCE AUCTIONS, LLC et al Defendant(s) ____________________________/

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Joseph Dellorusso from Corporate Defendants’ Second Amended Affirmative Defense One and to Deny Demand For Judgment (Docket Number 181),

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Joseph Dellorusso from Individual Defendant Alexopoulos’ Second Amended Affirmative Defense One and to Deny Demand For Fees and Costs (Docket Number 182),

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Joseph Dellorusso from Individual Defendant Alexopoulos’ Second Amended Affirmative Defense One and to Deny Demand For Fees and Costs is

The Defendants’ Second Amended Affirmative Defense One is deemed filed as of the date of this Order.

For context, on May 30, 2019, a grand jury returned a Superseding Indictment charging Defendant Edward Burke, his associate Peter Andrews, and businessman Charles Cui in nineteen corruption-related counts.

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), “govern the admissibility of expert testimony.” Kirk v. Clark Equip.

At the hearing and in his motion, Burke drew attention to a previous draft of her CV, where Professor Mixon placed three chapters from her book Twenty-First Century Chicago under this category when they were not in fact peer-reviewed; but rather reviewed by her co-editors.

Professor Mixon’s proposed expert testimony regarding the structure and rules of the City Council and the roles and responsibilities of Alderpersons is particularly useful and relevant to jurors in this complex case.

Burke cites United v. McClain, a recent case in which a court in this district excluded testimony from a political scientist, since no “expert can waltz into the courtroom and render opinions not based upon a recognized method.” No. 20 CR 812, 2023 WL 2403137, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2023) (quotations omitted) (emphasis added).

In determining whether the duty to report ordinance here gives rise to “substantial hazards of self-incrimination,” factors of particular importance are the extent to which it (1) targets a “highly selective group inherently suspect of criminal activities,” rather than the general public; and (2) delves into “an area permeated with criminal statutes,” rather than an “essentially noncriminal and regulatory area.” Id. at 428–30 (quoting Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 382 U.S. 70, 79 (1965), and Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 48 (1968)); see also United States v. Turner, 480 F.2d 272, 277 (7th Cir. 1973) (“[C]onsideration must be made of both the nature of disclosure required and the regulatory purpose for which it is required.”).

United States v. Balistrieri, 778 F.2d 1226, 1232 (7th Cir. 1985) (“[T]he evidence clearly supports the conclusion that [the defendant] sought to induce [the victim] to surrender a financial interest in and control over Best Vending Company, and that he did so by attempting to generate and exploit [the victim’s] fear of injury to his person and property.”).

Seeking a rebalancing, Burke urged at oral argument that current events—particularly the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, sparking the Israel–Hamas war—have altered the Rule 403 calculus by creating a heightened sense of sympathy toward Jewish people, making Burke’s comments much more prejudicial.

There, the Supreme Court defined the phrase “official act,” under 18 U.S.C. § 201, to mean “a decision or action on a ‘question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,’” which must (1) “involve a formal exercise of governmental power”; and (2) “be something specific and focused that is ‘pending’ or ‘may be brought’ before a public official.” Id. at 574 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3)).

In the same vein, Burke’s calls with Solis—asking Solis to help him solicit clients for his law firm—reflect Burke’s intent and modus operandi to use his official position to gain private business from property developers like Company G subject to his (or Solis’s) aldermanic authority.

United States v. Taylor, 778 F.3d 667, 672 (7th Cir. 2015) (declining § 3852(c) relief based on an amendment that did not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range).

Garcia misunderstands the sentencing court’s discretion to group offenses with “a common criminal objective” that impact the same “society,” a lower bar than linking acts to the same conspiracy.

In the latter role, Garcia “oversaw operations in all regions within his designated geographic area, implemented gang rules, ensured punishment when the rules were violated, and ordered retaliatory strikes against rival gangs.” Id. Garcia was found guilty of participating in a racketeering conspiracy involving murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, extortion, and drug trafficking.

Additionally, Garcia has accrued multiple disciplinary infractions in custody for possessing a dangerous weapon and assaulting other inmates.

Considering the totality of the factors and circumstances, the Court concludes that Ramirez continues to pose a significant danger to the public and that releasing him now from his sentence for “myriad violent crimes would not promote respect for the law.” United States v. Hoskins, No. 21-2912, 2022 WL 2187558, at *2 (7th Cir. June 16, 2022).

JUDGE: Beatrice Butchko Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Plaintiff(s) vs. INSURANCE AUCTIONS, LLC et al Defendant(s) ____________________________/

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Individual Defendant Alexopoulos’ Amended Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint and to Deny Demand For Fees and Costs (Docket Number 129), and

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Corporate Defendants’ Amended Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint and to Deny Demand For Judgment (Docket Number 130), and having heard arguments of Plaintiff, Individual Defendant Alexopoulos and all Corporate Defendants at the hearing on August 4, 2023, to which all parties appeared via Zoom teleconference, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Individual Defendant Alexopoulos’ and Corporate Defendants’ Third Amended Affirmative Defense is DENIED as to Alex Rudsky and GRANTED Case No: 2021-021622-CA-01 Page 1 of 3

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Individual Defendant Alexopoulos’ and Corporate Defendants’ Fourth Amended Affirmative Defense is DENIED,

JUDGE: Beatrice Butchko Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Plaintiff(s) vs. INSURANCE AUCTIONS, LLC et al Defendant(s) ____________________________/

This matter having come before the Court on Defendant MERKOURIOS ALEXOPOULOS a/k/a MARK ALEXOPOULOS a/ka MARK ALEXO a/k/a MARKOS ALEXOPOULO’S (“Defendant”) Second Motion for Extension of Time to respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, and the Court being apprised of the agreement of counsel, hereby ORDERS and ADJUDGES that said Motion is GRANTED.

Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Production on or before June 14, 2023.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 1st day of June, 2023.

Electronically Signed Case No: 2021-021622-CA-01 Page 1 of 2

JUDGE: Beatrice Butchko Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Plaintiff(s) vs. INSURANCE AUCTIONS, LLC et al Defendant(s) ____________________________/

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiff’s First Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Individual Defendant MERKOURIOS ALEXOPOULOS’ First Request for Production (the “Motion”), and the Court being advised that this Order was agreed to by the parties, it is hereby: ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1.

Plaintiff, Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs shall have up and through June 30, 2023, to respond to Individual Defendant Merkourios Alexopoulos’ First Request for Production.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 24th day of May, 2023.

No Further Judicial Action Required on THIS MOTION