Litigation Documents Related to the Mueller Investigation

1
Litigation Documents Related to the Mueller Investigation
Source: https://www.lawfareblog.com/litigation-documents-related-mueller-investigation
Any queries or additional documents should be directed to Quinta Jurecic at quinta.jurecic@lawfareblog.com.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference and related matters has so far
yielded a range of prosecutions and appellate litigation. Lawfare will be collecting significant documents from
these lawsuits on this page as the investigation and litigation moves forward.
This page was last updated on April 18, 2019.
On May 17, 2017, acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller III to serve as Special
Counsel.
 Appointment Order (05/17/2017)
On Mar. 22, 2019, Attorney General William Barr notified the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary
that Special Counsel Mueller concluded his investigation and Barr had received his final report.
 Barr Letter Announcing Conclusion of Investigation and Receipt of Report(03/22/2019)
On Mar. 24, 2019, Barr submitted a letter to the House and Senate Comittees on the Judiciary summarizing the
principal conclusions of Mueller's report.
 Barr Letter Summarizing Mueller Report Conclusions (03/24/2019)
Related Documents
 Barr Status Update to Congress (03/29/2019)
On April 18, 2019, the 448-page Mueller report was released in partially-redaced form.
 Mueller Report (04/18/2019)
Navigate Cases on This Page
 U.S. v. Michael D. Cohen
 U.S. v. Michael T. Flynn
 U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III (District of Columbia)
 U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III (Eastern District of Virginia)
 U.S. v. Internet Research Agency LLC, et al
 U.S. v. Konstantin Kilimnik
 U.S. v. Paul J Manafort, Jr (District of Columbia)
 U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr (Eastern District of Virginia)
 Paul J. Manafort, Jr v. U.S. Department of Justice
 Andrew Miller v. U.S.
 U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho
 U.S. v. George Papadopoulos
 U.S. v. Richard Pinedo, et al
 Sealed v. Sealed (In re Grand Jury Subpoena)
 U.S. v. Roger J. Stone, Jr.
 U.S. v. Alexander van der Zwaan

2
U.S. v. Michael D. Cohen (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1:18-cr-850)
Who is he? Michael Cohen was previously an employee of the Trump Organization, serving as executive vice
president and special counsel from around 2007 to 2017, and President Trump's personal attorney. In August
2018, he pleaded guilty to tax evasion, bank fraud, and campaign finance violations in a separate case brought by
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (1:18-cr-602).
What are the charges? On November 29, 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to
Congress about the Trump Organization's efforts to construct a Trump Tower Moscow in violation of 18 U.S.C.
1001 (a)(2) in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York.
Where does this case stand? Cohen pleaded guilty to the charge and entered into a formal plea agreement with
Special Counsel Robert Mueller on November 29, 2018. He was sentenced to 36 months in prison on the tax
evasion, bank fraud, and campaign finance charges, with a 2-month sentence for the charges brought by the
special counsel to run concurrently. He is currently scheduled to begin his sentence on May 6, 2019.
 Case Documents
o Criminal Information (11/29/2018)
o Plea Agreement (11/29/2018)
o Letter Motion re: Request for Transfer of Sentencing (11/29/2018)
NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT as to Michael Cohen, to Judge William H. Pauley,
III. Judge Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr no longer assigned to the case. (ma) (Entered:
11/29/2018)
o Sentencing Memorandum on Behalf of Michael Cohen (11/30/2018)
o Sentencing Memorandum from the Office of the Special Counsel (12/07/2018)
o Judgment (12/12/2018)
o Order for admission Pro Hac Vice granting motion for Barry A. Spevack to appear as counsel for
Michael Cohen (02/20/2019)
o Order for admission Pro Hac Vice granting motion for Michael D. Monico to appear as counsel
for Michael Cohen (02/20/2019)
 Documents from Cohen's prosecution by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New
York (1:18-cr-602)
o Plea agreement (8/21/18)
o Criminal information (8/21/18)
o Sentencing Memorandum from the Southern District of New York (12/07/2018)
o Judgment (12/12/2018)
o Order granting in part and denying in part media organizations’ request to unseal materials related
to the April 9 FBI search warrant (02/07/2019)
o Granted request to delay surrender date to May 6, 2019 (02/20/2019)

3
o Partially redacted search warrant materials unsealed pursuant to Feb. 27 order
 Government letter outlining attached search warrant materials (03/19/2019)
 Exhibit #1 (signed 04/08/2018, filed 03/19/2019)
 Related documents
o Non-prosecution agreement with American Media, Inc. (09/20/2018)
U.S. v. Michael T. Flynn (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:17-cr-232)
Who is he? Lieutenant General Michael T. Flynn (Ret.) served as National Security Advisor to President Trump
from the president’s inauguration on Jan. 20 to Feb. 13, 2017. He stepped down after reports that he misled both
the FBI and Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
What are the charges? The criminal information filed against Flynn charges him with making false statements to
FBI agents about his communications with Kislyak. According to the document, Flynn initially claimed that he
discussed neither U.S. sanctions against Russia nor a United Nations resolution regarding Israeli settlements with
Kislyak. However, the government states Flynn later admitted that he asked the Russian ambassador to moderate
its response to President Obama’s Dec. 28, 2016 executive order implementing sanctions against Russia, and also
tried to persuade Russia to vote against the UN resolution.
Where does the case stand? Flynn pleaded guilty on Dec. 1, 2017 and proceeded to cooperate with the ongoing
special counsel investigation. Sentencing had been scheduled for Dec. 18, 2018, but during the hearing, Flynn's
lawyers requested that the court delay sentencing further. A status report is due on Feb. 13, 2019.
 Criminal Information
 Plea Agreement
o Statement of Offense (12/01/2017)
 Status Reports
o Joint Status Report (1/31/18)

4
 Scheduling (09/20/2018):
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN:, REFERRAL TO PROBATION OFFICE for
Presentence Investigation as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN.U.S. Probation Presentence Report due by 11/20/2018.
Government Memorandum Of Law due by 12/4/2018. Defendant Memorandum Of Law due by 12/11/2018.
Government's Reply due by 12/14/2018. Sentencing set for 12/18/2018 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac)
 Sentencing documents
o Government's Sentencing Memorandum (12/04/2018)
o Addendum to Government's Sentencing Memorandum (12/04/2018)
o Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum (12/11/2018)
o Government's Reply to Defendant's Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing (12/14/2018)
o Redacted FD-302 Report Summarizing Flynn FBI Interiew (12/17/2018)
o Minute Entry
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Sentencing held on 12/18/2018 as to
MICHAEL T. FLYNN. Defendant Is Sworn And The Court Give Colloquy In Regards To Plea Of Guilty. The
Court Accepts The Defendants' Guilty Plea. Sentencing Commences. Defense Request To Continue Sentencing
Heard And Granted. Parties Will File To The Court A Status Report Due 3/13/2019 By 12:00PMBond Status of
Defendant: PERSONAL RECOGNIZANCE; Court Reporter: SCOTT WALLACE; Defense Attorney: ROBERT
KELNER/ STEPHEN ANTHONY; US Attorney: BRANDON VAN GRACK/ZAINAB AHAMAD; Prob
Officer: KELLY KRAEMER-SOARES/ RENEE MOSES-GREGORY; (mac) (Entered: 12/18/2018)
U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:17-cr-201)
Who is he? Richard W. Gates worked on the Trump campaign under Paul Manafort as a campaign adviser
beginning in June 2016. He stayed on the campaign after Manafort left, and then served as deputy chairman of
Donald Trump’s inaugural committee. Before his work with the Trump campaign, Gates worked alongside
Manafort during the latter’s time in Ukraine as a lobbyist and political consultant to Viktor Yanukovych and the
Party of Regions.
What are the charges? On Oct. 30, 2017, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia handed down an
indictment charging both Manafort and Gates with conspiracy against the United States, including conspiracy to
launder money, failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts, making false and misleading FARA
statements and making false statements to the Justice Department.
Where does the case stand? On Feb. 23, 2018, Gates pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charges, as well as to
making a false statement to the special counsel’s office. He testified in Paul Manafort’s trial in the Eastern
District of Virginia on Aug. 6, 2018. As of November 2018, court documents show that Gates was continuing to
cooperate with the ongoing special counsel investigation.
 Indictment
o Redacted Indictment (10/30/2017)

5
 Conditions of Release
o Order Setting Conditions of Release as to Richard W. Gates (10/30/2017)
o Memorandum in Support of Conditions of Release (10/31/2017)
o Motion to Modify Conditions of Release by Richard W. Gates, III (11/02/2017)
o Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to Richard W. Gates, III Motion to Modify Conditions of
Release (11/03/2017)
o Reply to Opposition to Motion to Modify Conditions of Release (11/16/2017)
o Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Modify Conditions of Release (11/16/2017)
o Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Modify Terms of Release (01/04/2018)
o Order Vacating the Condition of Home Confinement (11/16/2018)
o Motion to Modify Conditions of Release (02/28/2018)
o Unopposed Motion to Modify Conditions of Release (10/11/2018)
o Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Modify Conditions of Release (10/15/2018)
 Status Reports
o Status Report (12/08/2017)
o Status Report (02/22/2018)
 Guilty Plea
o Superseding Criminal Information (02/23/2018)
U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 1:18-cr-83; case
dismissed)
Why are these charges separate from the charges against Gates in the Eastern District of Virginia? As with
Manafort, the special counsel filed charges against Gates in both the District of Columbia as well as the Eastern
District of Virginia. Gates pleaded guilty to the D.C. charges, and the Virginia charges were dismissed without
prejudice. This case was closed on 3/1/2018.
 Indictment
o Superseding Indictment (02/22/2018)
o Order Granting Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment (03/01/2018)
 Status Report
o Status Report by USA (02/28/2018)

6
 Motion to Dismiss Charges
o Motion to Dismiss Charges Against Defendant Richard W. Gates III Without Prejudice by
USA (02/27/2018)
o Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment (03/01/2018)
U.S. v. Internet Research Agency LLC, et al (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; 1:18-cr-32)
Who are the defendants? The indictment names 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities. The first of these
entities is the Internet Research Agency LLC, a Kremlin-backed troll farm based in St. Petersburg that has been
active since at least 2013. The government alleges that the other two entities, Concord Management and
Consulting LLC and Concord Catering, are controlled by Russian oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, a
longtime associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Collectively referred to in court documents as
“Concord,” these entities are accused of having a number of Russian government contracts and being the primary
source of funding for the Internet Research Agency’s efforts.
What are the charges? The Feb. 16, 2018 indictment charges the individuals and entities with conspiracy to
defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft. The
defendants allegedly posed as U.S. persons on social media and contacted real U.S. persons and organizations to
coordinate political events and campaigns, with the goal of influencing U.S. politics in general and the 2016
presidential election in particular.
Where does the case stand? There is no indication that any of the defendants are in U.S. custody or the custody of
other law enforcement entities. However, Concord Management and Consulting LLC have filed two motions to
dismiss the case against them and the other alleged co-conspirators, both of which the district court has denied.
 Indictment
o Indictment (02/16/2018)
 Motion to Dismiss Based on the Special Counsel’s Unlawful Appointment
o Motion to Dismiss Case Based on the Special Counsel’s Unlawful Appointment and Lack of
Authority to Indict Concord (06/25/2018)
o Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Case (06/25/2018)
o Response by USA as to Motion to Dismiss (07/16/2018)
o Reply in Support re Motion to Dismiss Case (07/30/2018)
o Government’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (08/15/2018)
o Memorandum Opinion Denying the Motion to Dismiss (08/15/2018)
 Motion to Dismiss
o Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (08/31/2018)
o Supplement by USA as to Concord Management and Consulting LLC re Motion to Dismiss
Case (10/23/2018)
o Response by Concord Management and Consulting LLC re Government’s Brief in Opposition re
Motion to Dismiss (10/25/2018)
o Order denying motion to dismiss (11/15/2018)
o Memorandum Opinion (11/15/2018)

7
 Protective Order
o Protective Order (6/29/18)
o Defendant's Motion for Approval to Disclose Discovery Pursuant to Protective Order (12/20/18)
o Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery (12/20/18)
o Government's Motion for Leave to File Ex Parte, In Camera Classified Addendum to
Government's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Approval to Disclose Discovery (12/21/28)
U.S. v. Konstantin Kilimnik (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:17-cr-201)
Who is he? Konstantin Kilimnik is a dual Ukrainian-Russian citizen who worked as Manafort’s translator and
local contact in Ukraine. Though it has been reported that Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence, he has
repeatedly denied those allegations. Kilimnik claims he stopped working for Manafort in 2014, but acknowledges
that he met with Manafort at least two times while Manafort was working for the Trump campaign. The last
publicly known communication between the two was in April 2018, according to court documents.
What are the charges? In a superseding indictment filed on June 8, 2018, the special counsel alleged that Kilimnik
helped Manafort contact potential witnesses in Manafort’s upcoming trial to persuade them not to contradict
Manafort’s testimony.
Where does the case stand? Kilimnik’s current whereabouts are unknown. While Manafort pleaded guilty to the
witness tampering charges on Sept. 14, 2018, but no further action has been taken in Kilimnik’s case.
 Superseding Indictment as to Paul J. Manafort, Jr. and Konstantin Kilimnik (06/08/2018)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:17-cr-201)
Why is this case separate from the charges against Manafort in the Eastern District of Virginia? The first
indictment against Paul Manafort was returned by a grand jury in the District of Columbia in October 2017,
months before the grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia returned a separate indictment in Febuary
2018. Manafort refused to waive venue for the Virginia charges, which would have allowed prosecutors to bring
all charges in Washington, D.C., so both cases proceeded separately. The Virginia trial took place first, from July
31 through Aug. 21. The D.C. trial was scheduled to begin on Sept. 24. However, Manafort entered into a plea
agreement on Sept. 14.
What are the charges? On Oct. 30, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia unsealed an
indictment charging Manafort and his associate Rick Gates with conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy
to launder money, failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts, acting as an unregistered agent of
a foreign principal, making false and misleading FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act) statements and making
false statements to the Department of Justice. The charges are related to Manafort’s lobbying and political
consulting work in Ukraine.
On June 6, 2018, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Manafort and his associate
Konstantin Kilimnik with obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice for their alleged efforts to
contact and influence potential witnesses.
Where does the case stand? Manafort was sentenced on Mar. 13 by Judge Amy Berman Jackson to 73 months in
prison, with the first 30 months to run concurrently with his sentence in the Eastern District of Virginia. Between
the two cases, Manafort was sentenced to a total of seven and a half years in prison.
 Indictments

8
 Status Reports
o Government Status Report (01/12/2018)
 Motions on Conditions of Release
o Order Setting Conditions for High Intensity Supervision Program as to Paul J. Manafort,
Jr. (10/30/2017)
o Transcript of Arraignment (11/03/2017)
o Motion to Modify Conditions of Release (11/04/2017)
o Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Modify Conditions of Release (12/04/2017)
o Reply to Opposition to Motion by Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (12/07/2017)
o Response by USA as to Paul J. Manafort, Jr. re Reply to Opposition to Motion (12/08/2017)
o Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Modify Conditions of
Release (12/15/2017)
 Motion to Revoke Defendant’s Release
o Motion to Revoke or Revise Defendant’s Current Order of Pretrial Release (06/04/2018)
o Response by Paul J. Manafort, Jr. to Motion to Revoke or Revise Current Order of Pretrial
Release (06/08/2018)
o Reply in Support by USA to Motion to Revoke or Revise Current Order of Pretrial
Release (06/12/2018)
o Detention Order as to Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (06/15/2018)
 Motion to Dismiss Case by Paul J. Manafort, Jr.
o Motion to Dismiss Case by Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (03/14/2018)
o Response by USA as to Paul J. Manafort’s Motion to Dismiss Case (04/02/2018)
o Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Case (04/12/2018)
o Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss (05/15/2018)
 Motion to Dismiss Count One by Paul J. Manafort, Jr.
o Motion to Dismiss Count by Paul J. Manafort Jr. (03/14/2018)
o Response by USA as to Paul J. Manafort, Jr. Motion to Dismiss Count (04/04/2018)
o Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Count (04/11/2018)
o Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count (05/25/2018)
 Motion to Dismiss Count Two of the Superseding Indictment by Paul J. Manafort, Jr.
o Motion to Dismiss Count Two of the Superseding Indictment (03/14/2018)
o Response by USA as to Paul J. Manafort, Jr. Motion to Dismiss Count Two of the Superseding
Indictment (04/04/2018)
o Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Count Two of the Superseding Indictment (04/11/2018)

9
o Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count
Two (06/22/2018)
 Motion to Suppress Fruits of Search of Storage Unit by Paul J. Manafort, Jr.
o Motion to Suppress Fruits of Search of Storage Unit (04/06/2018)
o Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to Paul J. Manafort, Jr. Motion to Suppress Fruits of
Search of Storage Unit (04/23/2018)
o Reply to Opposition to Motion to Suppress Fruits of Search of Storage Unit (05/04/2018)
o Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained from Storage
Unit (06/21/2018)
 Motion to Suppress Fruits of Search of Residence by Paul J. Manafort, Jr.
o Motion to Suppress Fruits of Search of Residence (04/09/2018)
o Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to Motion to Suppress Fruits of Search of
Residence (04/23/2018)
o Reply to Opposition to Motion to Suppress Fruits of Search of Residence (05/04/2018)
o Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Motion to Suppress Fruits of Search of
Residence (07/18/2018)
 Guilty Plea
o Statement of the Offenses and Other Acts by USA (09/14/2018)
o Superseding Criminal Information (09/14/2018)
o Exhibits (09/14/2018)
 Plea Agreement Breach Determination
o Government's Submission in Support of its Breach Determination (12/07/2018)
o Response to the special counsel's submission in support of its breach determination (01/8/2019)
o Declaration in Support of the Government's Breach Determination and Sentencing (01/15/2019)
o Manafort's Reply to the special counsel's declaration in support of the government's breach
determination (01/23/2019)
o Order on breach determination and Manafort's false statements (02/13/2019)
o Manafort's Post-Hearing Memorandum (02/13/2019)
o Government's Supplemental Brief (02/27/2019)
 Sentencing Documents
 Memorandum
 Exhibits

10
o Manafort's Sentencing Memorandum (02/25/2019)
o Minute Entry (03/13/2019)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amy Berman Jackson: Sentencing held
on 3/13/2019 as to PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (1). For the reasons stated on the record in
open Court Defendant's 540 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Count 1ssss:
Sentenced to Sixty (60) months incarceration. The sentence is to run concurrent to Thirty
(30) months of the sentence previously imposed by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia which has already accounted for the credit defendant is due for time
served. Special Assessment of $100.00 was imposed. Count 2ssss: Sentenced to Thirteen
(13) months incarceration, to be served consecutively to the sentence on Count One (1).
Special Assessment of $100.00 was imposed. Restitution in the amount of $6,164,032.00
was ORDERED. Counts: 1, 10, 11, 12, 1s, 1ss, 1sss, 2, 2s, 2ss, 2sss, 3-6, 3s, 3ss, 3sss, 4s,
4ss, 4sss, 5s, 5ss, 5sss, 6sss, 7sss, (All Remaining Counts) were DISMISSED ON ORAL
MOTION BY THE GOVERNMENT. Bond Status of Defendant: Defendant
Committed/Commitment Issued; Court Reporter: Janice Dickman; Defense Attorneys:
Kevin M. Downing, Thomas Edward Zehnle and Richard William Westling; US
Attorneys: Andrew Weissmann, Greg Donald Andres and Jeannie Sclafani Rhee;
Probation Officer: Kelly Kraemer-Soares. (jth)
o Order of Forfeiture (03/13/2019)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 1:18-cr-83)
Who is he? Paul J. Manafort, Jr. served as the chairman for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign from March
2016 through August 2016. He resigned after the New York Times reported that he had received “off-the-books”
money from a Ukrainian political party with a pro-Russian tilt, known as the Party of Regions. Prior to his time
on the Trump campaign, Manafort worked as a lobbyist in Ukraine from 2005 until 2014, largely as an advisor to
former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych as well as to the Party of Regions.
What are the charges? On Feb. 22, 2018, a federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging
Manafort with bank fraud, conspiracy to commit bank fraud, filing false tax returns, aiding in the filing of false
tax returns and failure to file reports of foreign bank accounts. The charges are related to his lobbying and
political consulting work in Ukraine.
Where does the case stand? On Mar. 8, 2019, Judge T.S. Ellis, III sentenced Manafort to 47 months in prison.
Combined with the sentence in his D.C. case, Manafort's total sentence amounts to seven and a half years.
 Indictments
o Sealed Indictment (2/13/2018)
 Status Reports
o Status Report Regarding Motion to Revoke or Revise Defendant Paul J. Manafort, Jr.’s Current
Order of Pretrial Release in D.C. (06/04/2018)
o Status Report by USA Regarding Scheduling of Sentencing Following Feb. 8, 2019
Cancellation (02/15/2019)
o Reply by Paul Manafort Regarding Government Status Report on Sentencing (02/15/2019)
o Status Report by Paul J. Manafort, Jr (03/01/2019)

11
o Order Releasing Defendant Pending Trial (03/09/2018)
 Motions to Dismiss Superseding Indictment
o Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (03/27/2018)
o Government’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss(04/10/2018)
o Defendant’s Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss (04/16/2018)
o Memorandum Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (06/26/2018)
 Motion to Dismiss Count Eleven
o Memorandum In Support of Motion to Dismiss Count Eleven(04/30/2018)
o Response to Motion to Dismiss Count Eleven (05/14/2018)
o Reply to Response to Dismiss Count Eleven (05/21/2018)
 Motion to Suppress Evidence from Storage Unit
o Memorandum in Support of Motion to Suppress Evidence from Storage Unit (04/30/2018)
o Response in Opposition by USA to Motion to Suppress Evidence From Storage Unit (05/14/2018)
o Reply to Response to Motion to Suppress Evidence From Storage Unit (05/21/2018)
o Memorandum Opinion Denying Motion to Suppress (07/09/2018)
 Motion to Suppress Evidence from Residence
o Memorandum in Support of Motion to Suppress Evidence from Residence (04/30/2018)
o Reply in Response to Motion to Suppress Evidence from Residence (05/21/2018)
o Memorandum Opinion Denying Motion to Suppress (07/10/2018)
 Motion for Hearing Regarding Improper Disclosures by Government
o Memorandum in Support of Motion for Hearing (04/30/2018)
o Government Response to Motion for Hearing on Government Leaks(05/14/2018)
 Jury Verdict Form
o Jury Verdict Form (08/21/2018)
 Documents related to the outstanding counts
o Mistrial Order (08/22/2018)
o Government’s Notice Regarding Remaining Counts (09/26/2018)
o Order Setting a Status Conference to Discuss Outstanding Charges(10/10/2018)
o Government’s Filing in Response to Court’s Oct. 10 Order(10/17/2018)
The court will dismiss the deadlocked counts without prejudice and order the preparation
of a PSR. Sentencing set for 2/8/2019 at 09:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 900 before
District Judge T. S. Ellis III.

12
 Documents related to sentencing
o Motion to Indefinitely Postpone Feb. 8, 2019 Sentencing until resolution of plea agreement
dispute in D.C. case (1:17-cr-201) (01/28/2019)
o Order Scheduling Sentencing for March 8, 2019 (02/19/2019)
o Sentencing reset for 3/7/2019 at 03:30 PM in Alexandria Courtroom 900 before District Judge T.
S. Ellis III. (02/26/2019)
o Sentencing Memorandum by Paul J. Manafort, Jr (03/01/2019)
o Government's Sentencing Reply Memorandum (3/5/2019)
o Court's Sentencing (03/08/2019):
o Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge T. S. Ellis, III: Sentencing held
on 3/8/2019 for Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (1), Count(s) 1s-5s, 12s, 25s and 27s. USA appeared
through Andrew Weissman, Greg Andres, Uzo Asonye, Brandon Van Grack and FBI
Special Agent Sherine Ebadi. Defendant appeared with Kevin Downing, Thomas Zehnle,
Richard Westling, Brian Ketcham and Tim Wang. COURT: Defendant is sentenced for a
total of 47 months. This term consists of 24 months on each of Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; 30
months on Count 12; 47 months on each of Counts 25 and Count 27, to run concurrently
with each other. Defendant to receive credit for 9 months already served. Court will enter
an Order Nunc Pro Tunc that a bond violation occur because there was an adjudication in
another court. Supervised Release for 3 Years Counts total, with special conditions. This
term consists of 1 year on each Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; 3 years on each Counts of 12, 25,
and 27 to run concurrently with each other. Fine Imposed of $50,000 due immediately/
monthly installments of $100 or 25% of income to begin w/in 60 days of release from
custody. Restitution to be determined. Govt to submit a new Restitution Order. Special
Assessment $100 on each Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 25, and 27 = $800 Govt will not seek
forfeiture order in this district. CONDS: (1) The defendant shall not incur new credit
charges or open additional lines of credit without the approval of the probation officer. (2)
The defendant shall provide the probation officer access to any requested financial
information. The Court recommends defendant to be designated to a facility in
Cumberland, MD, if appropriate and available. Defendant remanded. Court Reporter: T.
Harris (tran) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
o Government's Motion for Restitution Order (03/12/2019)
Paul J. Manafort, Jr v. U.S. Department of Justice (case dismissed)
What is the case? Facing criminal charges, Manafort filed a civil suit against the Justice Department, Acting
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller, arguing that Rosenstein’s order
appointing Mueller stretched beyond the authority granted by the Justice Department’s special counsel
regulations. The case was dismissed in August 2018, just as Manafort’s criminal trial in the Eastern District of
Virginia was beginning.

13
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (1:18-cv-00011)
 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (1/3/18)
 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (2/2/18)
 Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (2/16/18)
 Defendants’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (3/2/18)
 Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Plaintiff’s Lack of Standing (4/11/18)
 Plaintiff’s Supplemental Memorandum of Law Regarding Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (4/11/18)
 Order (4/27/18)
 Memorandum Opinion (4/27/18)
 Notice of Appeal (6/25/18)
 Order (case dismissed) (8/1/18)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (18-5193)
 Clerk’s Order (11/20/18)
 Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal (7/30/18)
 Order (case dismissed) (8/1/18)
Andrew Miller v. U.S.
Who is he? Andrew Miller is a longtime associate of Roger Stone, himself an advisor to the Trump presidential
campaign. The special counsel is reportedly investigating whether Stone had advance knowledge of the Wikileaks
email releases.
What are the charges? While Miller agreed to be interviewed by federal investigators and cooperate with the
special counsel’s investigation more broadly, he refused to testify before a grand jury even after twice being
subpoenaed by Mueller’s office. Miller was held in civil contempt by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia and is now appealing the contempt order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Where does the case stand? In both the district and the circuit court, Miller has challenged the underlying
authority of the special counsel by arguing that Mueller was unlawfully appointed. His challenge failed at the
district level and he was held in contempt on Oct. 10, 2018 for refusing to appear before the grand jury. However,
the district court stayed the order until Miller appeal the ruling.
The case is currently before the D.C. Circuit. Notably, Concord Management and Consulting LLC, one of the
Russian entities named in the Feb. 16 indictment, has filed an amicus brief in this case, and Miller’s attorney
yielded five minutes of his time to Concord during oral argument before the appeals court.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (1:18-gj-00034-BAH)
 Motion to Quash
o Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas (06/28/2018)
o Reply to Opposition to Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas (07/17/2018)
o Order Denying the Motion to Quash (07/31/2018)
 Letter from Special Counsel Mueller
o Letter to the Court (07/19/2018)
 Contempt Order
o Contempt Order (08/10/2018)

14
 Briefs
o Appellant Brief (09/11/2018)
o Appellee Brief (09/28/2018)
o Appellant Reply Brief (10/09/2018)
 Documents regarding Concord Management LLC
o Motion for Leave to Intervene of Concord Management and Consulting LLC (08/22/2018)
o Amicus for Appellant Brief Filed by Concord Management and Consulting LLC (09/14/2018)
o Motion Regarding Oral Argument Attorneys (10/30/2018)
 Amicus Briefs
o Amicus for Appellant Brief Lodged by Montgomery Blair Sibley (09/27/2018)
o Amicus for Appellee Brief Filed by Constitutional Administrative Law Scholars (10/05/2018)
 Opinion (2/26/2019)
U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:18-cr-215)
Who are the defendants? The indictment names Viktor Borisovich Netyksho and another 11 individuals, all of
whom allegedly work for Russia’s military intelligence agency, the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General
Staff (GRU).
What are the charges? On July 13, 2018, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging those 12 Russian
intelligence officers with conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, aggravated identity theft and
conspiracy to launder money. The charges are related to “large-scale cyber operations to interfere with the 2016
U.S. presidential election.” The government alleges that GRU officers hacked into the email accounts of
individuals associated with the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee before releasing tens of thousands of those emails to the public in
conjunction with Wikileaks.
Where does the case stand? There have been no further developments since the indictment was filed on July 13,
2018.
 Indictment as to Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al (07/13/2018)
U.S. v. George Papadopoulos (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:17-cr-00182)
Who is he? George Papadopoulos served on the foreign policy advisory panel for Donald Trump’s presidential
campaign beginning in March 2016. According to court documents, he soon met Maltese professor Joseph
Mifsud, who touted his connections to the Russian government and told Papadopoulos that the Russians had
“dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” Papadopoulos allegedly sought to arrange a
meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin with Mifsud as the go-between, and kept senior
campaign advisers up to date on his efforts.
What are the charges? On July 28, 2017, George Papadopoulos was charged with making false statements to
federal agents about his foreign contacts and the nature of those communications. He was also charged with
obstruction of justice for his attempts to delete Facebook communications with foreign contacts in order to hide
them from federal investigators.

15
Where does the case stand? Papadopoulos pleaded guilty on Oct. 5, 2017 to making false statements. On Sept. 7,
2018, he was sentenced to 14 days in prison and 12 months of supervised release. Papadopoulos began his 14-day
sentence on Nov. 26.
 Complaint
o Sealed Complaint (07/28/17)
o Affidavit in Support of the Criminal Complaint (07/28/2018)
 Plea Agreement
o Statement of the Offense (10/05/17)
 Joint Status Reports
 Sentencing Memoranda
o Government’s Sentencing Memorandum (8/17/18)
o Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum (8/31/18)
 Sentencing Information
Sentencing held on 9/7/2018 as to GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS. Count 1: Defendant
Sentenced to Fourteen (14) Days of Incarceration; Followed by Twelve (12) Months of
Supervised Release; A $100.00 Special Assessment is imposed; A Fine of $9,500.00 is
imposed. Oral Motion by Defendant to travel before surrender date; HEARD and TAKEN
UNDER ADVISMENT. Defendant granted leave to file, under seal, a Motion to Modify
Release Conditions for Permission to Travel, after first conferring with Pretrial Services
and the Government. Bond Status of Defendant: Defendant permitted to self-surrender;
Court Reporter: Jeff Hook; Defense Attorneys: Thomas M. Breen, Robert W. Stanley, and
Todd S. Pugh; Special Counsel's Office: Andrew D. Goldstein, Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, and
Jeannie S. Rhee; Probation Officers: Kelly Kraemer-Soares, and Renee Moses-Gregory.
(kt)
o Judgment (9/11/18)
 Post-sentencing filings
o Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (11/13/18)
o Minute Order
Upon consideration of Defense Counsel's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney 52 , it is
hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Thomas M. Breen and Robert W.
Stanley shall be terminated as Defense Counsel. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on
11/13/2018. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 11/13/2018)

16
o Memorandum of Law in Support of George Papadopoulos’s Motion to Continue Bail Pending
Outcome in Appeal in In re Grand Jury Investigation (11/16/18)
o Motion to Continue (11/21/18)
o Government's Response to Defendant's Motion to Continue Bail (11/21/18)
o Memorandum Opinion and Order (11/25/18)
U.S. v. Richard Pinedo, et al (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:18-cr-24)
Who is he? According to the government, Richard Pinedo ran a California-based online service called Auction
Essence that created and sold bank account numbers to anonymous online users. Individuals who bought the bank
account numbers could then circumvent the security features on online payment companies such as Paypal.
What are the charges? Pinedo was charged with identity theft for creating around 200 bank accounts using stolen
identities. He then allegedly sold these bank account numbers to unidentified users, some of whom had Russian
ties. Prosecutors said that Pinedo helped link anonymous internet activity to the Russians named in the Internet
Research Agency indictment, including Prigozhin.
Where does the case stand? Pinedo pleaded guilty on Feb. 12, 2018 to identity fraud. He was sentenced on Oct.
10, 2018 and is currently serving a 12-month prison term.
o Sealed Criminal Information (02/07/2018)
 Plea Agreement
 Sentencing Memorandum
o Sentencing Memorandum (09/26/2018)
o Defendant’s Supplemental Sentencing Memorandum (10/09/2018)
o Government’s Supplemental Sentencing Memorandum (10/09/2018)
 Minute Entry (10/10/2018)
Sentencing held on 10/10/2018 as to RICHARD PINEDO. The defendant was sentenced to one (1) year of
incarceration on Count 1, with six (6) months of that sentence to be served in the Bureau of Prisons, followed by
a term of twenty-four (24) months of supervised release with six months of home detention as a special condition
of the supervised release, and a $100.00 special assessment. Defendant ORDERED to self-surrender on a date
determined by the Bureau of Prisons and the US Probation Office. Bond Status of Defendant: Personal
Recognizance; Court Reporter: Sara Wick; Defense Attorney: Jeremy Lessem; US Attorneys (DOJ Special
Counsel): Jeannie Sclafani Rhee, Lawrence Atkinson, and Ryan Dickey; Prob Officer: Kelly Kramer-Soares. (jl)
Modified on 10/10/2018 to reflect correct sentencing language.
Sealed v. Sealed (In re Grand Jury Subpoena)
What do we know about this case? Very little. The entire district court docket was sealed until a redacted version
was released on Jan. 30, 2019. We know that a foreign company, called "Corporation from Country A" in the
filings, moved to quash the subpoena, which was denied by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
After the firm failed to produce the subpoenaed records, it was held in contempt in Oct. 2018. The resulting
publicly-available litigation has centered on the motion to quash and contempt charge.
How do we know this case involves the special counsel? As Josh Gerstein pointed out in Politico, the unsealed
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia docket showed that the government is being represented by
Mueller attorneys Scott Meisler and Zainab Ahmad on behalf of the Special Counsel's Office.

17
Where does the case stand? The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Aug. 16,
2018, where Chief Judge Beryl Howell ruled on Sept. 19. The case was appealed up to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia, which ruled on Dec. 18, 2018. After further appeal, proceedings in the Supreme
Court began in late Dec., 2018. On Mar. 25, 2019, the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (1:18-gj-00041-BAH)
 Public docket (1/31/2019)
 Notice of Appeal Filed (09/24/2018)
 Sealed Motion to Stay Underlying Order Filed by Appellant (09/27/2018)
 Per Curiam Order Directing Response by Appellee to Motion to Stay Case (09/28/2018)
 Sealed Response in Opposition (10/01/2018)
 Sealed Reply Filed by Appellant (10/01/2018)
 Per Curiam Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Case for Lack of Jurisdiction (10/03/2018)
 Sealed Petition for Rehearing, for Rehearing en banc filed by Appellant (10/05/2018)
 Per Curiam Order Denying Petition for Rehearing (10/24/2018)
 Per Curiam Order Denying Petition for Rehearing en banc (10/24/2018)
 Judgment (12/18/2018)
 Public redacted opinion (1/8/2019)
 Motion to Unseal filed by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (1/9/2019)
 Response to Motion to Unseal filed by appellant (1/16/2019)
 Reply in Support of Motion to Unseal filed by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (2/4/2019)
 Response to Motion to Unseal filed by government (2/5/2019)
 Reply filed by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (2/6/2019)
U.S. Supreme Court
The full docket is available on the Supreme Court's website. Key documents are available below.
 Redacted Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (1/7/2019)
 Supplemental Brief supporting petition for writ of certiorari (1/17/2019)
 Brief for the United States in Opposition (2/21/2019)
 Reply Brief supporting petition for writ of certiorari (2/28/2019)
 Denial of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (03/25/2019)
Related Documents
 Opinion granting in part and denying in part motion to unseal material including the identity of the
unnamed company (04/01/2019)

18
U.S. v. Roger J. Stone, Jr. (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:19-cr-18)
Who is he?
Roger J. Stone, Jr. is a Republican political operative and long-time associate of President Trump. Stone began
his political career working for Richard Nixon’s 1972 re-election bid, and later, the Nixon administration, and
was a member of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign until his dismissal in Aug. 2015.
What are the charges?
On Jan. 24, 2019, a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an seven-count indictment charging
Stone with one count of obstruction of a proceeding, five counts of making false statements, and one count of
witness tampering.
Where does the case stand?
During his arraignment before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson on Jan. 29, 2019, Stone pleaded not guilty
to all seven counts. Stone's trial is scheduled to begin on Nov. 5.
 Indictment
o Unsealed indictment (01/24/2019)
 Documents Relating to Arrest
o Government motion to seal case until defendant taken into custody (01/24/2019)
o Order granting motion to seal case (01/24/2019)
o Case unsealed pursuant to 3 Order filed on 01/24/2019 as to ROGER JASON STONE, JR. (zvt)
(Entered: 01/25/2019)
o Arrest warrant (01/29/2019)
 Plea
o Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson: Arraignment
as to ROGER JASON STONE JR. (1): Count 1,2-6, and 7 held on 1/29/2019. Not Guilty Plea as
to all counts. The Government is not opposed to the Release of Defendant, to include special
conditions. Status Conference set for 2/1/2019 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3 before Judge Amy
Berman Jackson. Bond Status of Defendant: Defendant Released on Personal Recognizance/
Release Issued; Court Reporter: Cathryn Jones; Time Frame: Ctrm 3 [11:00 - 11:13]; Defense
Attorney: Grant Smith and Robert Bushel; Special Counsel: Aaron Zelinsky and Jeannie Rhee;
US Attorneys: Jonathan Kravis and Michael Marando; Pretrial Officer: Christine Schuck. (zcal)
(Entered: 01/29/2019)
o Order setting conditions of release (01/29/2019)
o Order modifying conditions of release (02/01/2019)
 Documents Relating to Admission of Stone’s Defense Lawyers in the District of Columbia
o Set Hearings as to ROGER JASON STONE, JR: ARRAIGNMENT scheduled for 11:00 a.m. on
Tuesday, January 29, 2019 in Courtroom 4 before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson. (zcal)
(Entered: 01/25/2019)
o Notice of attorney appearance: Robert C. Buschel appearing for Roger Stone (01/25/2019)

19
o Notice of attorney appearance: Grant J. Smith appearing for Roger Stone (01/27/2019)
o MINUTE ORDER: On January 25, 2019, this court scheduled arraignment for 11:00 a.m. on
Tuesday, January 29, 2019. Thereafter, two lawyers, neither of whom is a member of the Bar of
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, each filed a "NOTICE OF
APPEARANCE" "as permanent counsel[,]" and included the notation "Pro hac vice pending"
beneath the signature line. As of the filing of the instant Minute Order, neither lawyer has
complied with Local Criminal Rule 44.1(d), which requires, in pertinent part, that "[a]ny [non-
member] seeking to appear pro hac vice must file a motion signed by a sponsoring member of the
Bar of this Court," accompanied by the prescribed declaration and fee. See also Local Civil Rule
44.1(c)(1) (providing that "[a]n attorney who is a member in good standing of the bar of any
United States Court or of the highest court of any State, but who is not a member of the Bar of this
Court, may file papers in this Court only if such attorney joins of record a member in good
standing of the Bar of this Court."). It is hereby ORDERED that if the two lawyers expect to "be
heard in open court" at the proceedings scheduled for tomorrow, then they shall fully comply with
Local Civil Rule 44.1(d) by 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. Signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah A.
Robinson on 1/28/2019. (lcdar3) Modified on 1/29/2019 (zcal). (Entered: 01/28/2019)
o Motion for admission of Robert Buschel pro hac vice (01/28/2019)
o Motion for admission of Grant Smith pro hac vice (01/28/2019)
o MINUTE ORDER: This court has reviewed the declaration filed as an attachment to the pending
Motion for Admission of Robert Buschel, and the declaration filed as an exhibit to the pending
Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Grant J. Smith. This court has determined that neither Mr.
Buschel nor Mr. Smith, in his declaration, set forth "(4) a certification that the attorney either has
or has not been disciplined by any bar, and if the attorney has been disciplined by any bar, the
circumstances and details of the discipline[.]" Local Criminal Rule 44.1(d). Additionally, this
court has observed that L. Peter Farkas, Esq., whose name appears on the signature line of each
motion, neither filed the motions nor entered his appearance; instead, the motions were filed by
the non-member attorneys. Thus, these non-member attorneys failed to comply with Local Civil
Rule 44.1(c)(1), which permits non-member attorneys to file papers in this Court "only if such
[non-member] attorney joins of record a member in good standing of the Bar of this Court[]"
(emphasis supplied). For these reasons, it is ORDERED that both motions are DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The attention of these non-member attorneys is directed to the 9:00
a.m. deadline for compliance with the cited Local Criminal Rules of this Court. Signed by
Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson on 1/28/2019. (lcdar3) (Entered: 01/28/2019)
o Notice of attorney appearance: L Peter Farkas appearing for Roger Stone (01/29/2019)
o Amended motion for admission of Robert Buschel pro hac vice(01/29/2019)
o Amended motion for admission of Grant Smith pro hac vice(01/29/2019)
o MINUTE ORDER granting Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Robert C. Buschel.
Signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson on 1/29/2019. (lcdar3) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
o MINUTE ORDER granting Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Grant J. Smith.
Signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson on 1/29/2019. (lcdar3) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
 Documents Relating to Discovery and Speedy Trial Act
o Government’s unopposed motion for protective order governing discovery (01/31/2019)
o Government’s consent motion to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act (01/31/2019)
o Protective order governing discovery (02/01/2019)
o Order designating case as complex and excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act (02/01/2019)

20
 Documents Relating to Notice of Related Case
o Notice of designation of related case (02/08/2019)
o Stone’s objection to designation of related case (02/08/2019)
o Government response to Stone’s objection to designation of related case (02/15/2019)
o MINUTE ORDER as to ROGER JASON STONE, JR (1). Upon consideration of 27 Defendant's
Objections to the Notice of Related Case and 37 the government's Response, the Court will take
no action with respect to the current assignment of this case, which is consistent with Local
Criminal Rule 57.12. The Court also notes that any future request that the Court take action must
be in the form of a motion that comports with Local Criminal Rule 47. SO ORDERED. Signed by
Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 02/15/2019. (lcabj3) (Entered: 02/15/2019)
 Documents Relating to Gag Orders
o Stone’s response to the court’s consideration of a gag order(02/08/2019)
o Government’s response to court’s consideration of a gag order(2/08/2019)
o Order placing partial gag order on counsel, parties and witnesses(02/15/2019)
o Stone’s notice of apology relating to Instagram post (02/18/2019)
o VACATED PURSUANT TO MINUTE ORDER FILED 02/21/19.....MINUTE ORDER as to
ROGER J. STONE, JR. Defendant is ORDERED to show cause at a hearing to be held on
Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 2:30 p.m. as to why the media contact order entered in this case
36 and/or his conditions of release 21 should not be modified or revoked in light of the posts on
his Instagram account on or about February 18, 2019. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on
2/19/19. (DMK) Modified on 2/22/2019 (zjth). (Entered: 02/19/2019)
o MINUTE ORDER as to ROGER J. STONE, JR. On February 19, 2019, the Court ordered the
defendant to show cause at a hearing to be held on February 21, 2019 as to why the media
communications order entered in this case 36 and/or defendant's conditions of release 21 should
not be modified or revoked. A hearing was held on this date. For the reasons set forth on the
record, and based upon the entire record, including the sealed exhibit to the hearing 42 , the
testimony of the defendant, the arguments of counsel, and the submissions of the parties 28 29
filed in connection with the potential imposition of a media communications order, the Court
entered the following order at the hearing: the conditions of defendant's pretrial release 21 are
hereby modified to include the condition that, and the February 15, 2019 media communications
order 36 is hereby modified to provide that, the defendant is prohibited from making statements to
the media or in public settings about the Special Counsel's investigation or this case or any of the
participants in the investigation or the case. The prohibition includes, but is not limited to,
statements made about the case through the following means: radio broadcasts; interviews on
television, on the radio, with print reporters, or on internet based media; press releases or press
conferences; blogs or letters to the editor; and posts on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or any other
form of social media. Furthermore, the defendant may not comment publicly about the case
indirectly by having statements made publicly on his behalf by surrogates, family members,
spokespersons, representatives, or volunteers. The order to show cause is hereby vacated. Signed
by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 2/21/19. (DMK) (Entered: 02/21/2019)

21
o Stone's motion to clarify 02/21/2019 gag order in light of published book (03/04/2019)
o Government's response regarding Stone's book and additional Instagram post (03/04/2019)
o Stone's response regarding book publication and attached declaration of publisher (03/04/2019)
o Order denying Stone's motion to clarify gag order and requiring status report from Stone
showing compliance with gag order (03/05/2019)
o Stone's response showing compliance with gag order (03/11/2019)
 Jerome Corsi Amicus Brief
o Amici curiae brief of Dr. Jerome Corsi (02/15/2019)
 Documents Relating to the Timing of the Public Release of the Indictment
o Stone’s motion requesting show cause order (02/13/2019)
o MINUTE ORDER as to ROGER JASON STONE, JR (1). With respect to 31 defendant's Motion
for Order to Show Cause, the government must provide the Court with information concerning the
precise timing and content of the "press release from SCO" referred to in [31-1] defendant's
Exhibit 1, if any, along with any other information it wishes to submit in response to the motion,
by February 22, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 02/15/2018.
(lcabj3) (Entered: 02/15/2019)
o Government’s response to Stone’s motion requesting show cause order (02/22/2019)
o Stone’s response to government response to show cause request(02/22/2019)
o MINUTE ORDER as to ROGER J. STONE, JR. In a minute order issued on February 15, 2019,
the Court requested that the government provide information and/or documentation concerning
"the precise timing and content" of the SCO press release referenced in Exhibit 1 to 31 defendant's
motion for order to show cause. While the government's response 44 to the motion for an order to
show cause clearly states that the indictment was unsealed and made available to the public after
the defendant had been placed under arrest, see 44Government's Response at 2 n.2, and that
assertion is entirely consistent with the exhibit [31-1] submitted by defendant in support of his
motion for order to show cause, the information provided still leaves the Court's particular
question unanswered. The government must file a notice by Tuesday, February 26, 2019
answering the following questions or indicating whether the information is unavailable: At what
time did the SCO post the indictment on its website with text indicating that the defendant "was
arrested"? At what time did the government send an email with "the same text" including a link to
the indictment on the SCO website, and to whom was it addressed? Attached to the notice, the
government must also submit any record that memorializes: the time of defendant's arrest; the
time the SCO posted the indictment on its website; and the time the government sent the email.
Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 2/22/19. (DMK) (Entered: 02/22/2019)
o Government’s response to Court’s questions (02/26/2019)
o Order denying Stone's show cause motion (02/27/2019)
 Documents Relating to Trial
o Government's notice of anticipated trial length (03/01/2019)
o Scheduling order (03/15/2019)

Litigation Documents Related to the Mueller Investigation

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Litigation Documents Related to the Mueller Investigation

Similaire à Litigation Documents Related to the Mueller Investigation (20)

Plus de Jonathan Underwood

Plus de Jonathan Underwood (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Litigation Documents Related to the Mueller Investigation