Flashes Home Search Notifications Sign in Post

Jon Seidel

@jonseidel.bsky.social

15981 Followers 138 Following

Federal Courts Reporter, @chicago.suntimes.com Signal: jseidel.37

07/16/2026 241 MOTION by USA for extension of time as to Michael Rabbitt, Katherine Marie Abughazaleh, Andre Martin, Catherine Sharp, Brian Straw as to motion for miscellaneous relief, 226 , miscellaneous other, 225 , miscellaneous other, 227 Government's Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Its Response to Motions in Dkt. 225, 226, 227
(Whalen, Nathaniel) (Entered: 07/16/2026)
07/16/2026 242 NOTICE of Motion by Nathaniel Luke Whalen for presentment of motion for extension of time, 241 before Honorable April M. Perry on 7/21/2026 at 10:30 AM. (Whalen, Nathaniel) (Entered: 07/16/2026)
07/17/2026 243 MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: Motion for extension of time 241 is granted. The Government's response to Defendants' motions 225, 226, and 227 is due by 8/4/2026. The reply date is extended to 8/18/2026. There is no need for the parties to appear at the motion hearing scheduled for 7/21/2026. Mailed notice. (jcc,) (Entered: 07/17/2026)

CONCLUSION
The Court denies Ahmed’s Motion to Join [110], without prejudice. No relief, including
access to sealed discovery, will be granted unless and until Defendant is arraigned, in-person, before
this Court. If Ahmed submits to the Court’s jurisdiction, he is given leave to renew his Motion to
Dismiss the Indictment on prosecutorial misconduct grounds.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 7/16/2026
Entered: _____________________________
SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN

GOVERNMENT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ITS RESPONSE TO MOTIONS IN DKT. 225, 226, 227
Now comes the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, ANDREW S. BOUTROS, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and moves for an extension of time of 14 days, from July 21, 2026, to August 4, 2026, in which to file its response to the pending motions filed by Rabbitt, et. al. relating to a special prosecutor (Dkt. 225, 226, 227).
In support of its motion, the Government states as follows:
1. All charges against Rabbitt, et. al., have been dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, they are not in custody or facing any charges. The Government filed its response to former Defendants’ requests for attorney’s fees and related discovery on July 7, 2026.
2. Pending are the motions asking this Court to appoint another attorney under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42 to initiate contempt proceedings, or for this Court to use its inherent authority in a similar manner. Dkt. 225, 226, 227. Those

MR. BOUTROS: Thank you, Your Honor.
8 So while this proceeding was taking place earlier
9 this morning, I was actually in the chief judge's courtroom
10 swearing in new AUSAs. So it was ironic as this was happening
11 that we were celebrating six new AUSAs being sworn in today,
12 three in the civil division and three in the criminal.
13 I came down from that to learn that Your Honor was
14 understandably quite upset. And I understood that Your Honor
15 was quite likely upset when I saw the minute order that was
16 issued, I believe, yesterday seeking today's hearing.
17 It is my very sincere belief, Your Honor, that no
18 prosecutor acted intentionally in misleading you, and that
19 there was no desire to mislead the Court and no deliberate
20 misconduct on the part of the prosecutors.
21 I know Your Honor has indicated that you may hold a
22 hearing or will hold a hearing. We obviously defer to Your
23 Honor. But I did want you to know from me, that from my
24 assessment, having spoken extensively to the prosecutors, I do
25 not believe that whatever errors were done specifically as it

III. U.S. Attorney Boutros Has Stated Publicly He Does Not Believe Misconduct Occurred, and That He Welcomes Further Investigation.
The Defendants’ concern that the payment of the attorneys’ fees by the U.S. Attorney’s Office will keep the truth and scope of the misconduct that occurred in this case hidden forever stems in large part from the public and private statements by U.S. Attorney Boutros regarding this case. A review of U.S. Attorney Boutros’ statements makes clear that he does not believe any misconduct actually occurred and thus no meaningful investigation or accountability can be counted on from his Office.5
U.S. Attorney Boutros previously informed the Court that he has already investigated this matter to his satisfaction and has sincerely determined that no deliberate misconduct occurred:
It is my very sincere belief, Your Honor, that no prosecutor acted intentionally in misleading you, and that there was no desire to mislead the Court and no deliberate misconduct on the part of the prosecutors.
5-21-26 Tr. at 50:17-21 (emphasis added).
While this Court might hold out hope that U.S. Attorney Boutros would change his “sincere
belief” after he investigates and realizes the true extent of the deception and fraud his prosecutors committed in this matter, he has foreclosed that route by stating he has, from his perspective, already fully investigated the matter and stands by his misguided belief that no misconduct occurred.
But I did want you to know from me, that from my assessment, having spoken extensively to the prosecutors, I do not believe that whatever errors
5 The agreement to stipulate that attorneys’ fees are warranted while continuing to publicly deny any wrongdoing further illustrates the need for this Court to initiate further investigation into this matter. Given the parties involved include political appointees at the highest levels of both the local and national Department of Justice offices, it is clear there will be no proper or objective …

The Court trusts that the Government takes seriously its duty of candor and its obligations to protect the public, and that the Government’s representations in this case reflect a good faith reading of 18 USC § 3582 and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. But the Court is deeply troubled at the significant departure this filing represents from the way the Government has treated dozens and dozens of motions for compassionate release, including in the case of United States v. Halderson, supra. The Court expects that the Government will take a position consistent to the one it takes here in similar circumstances in cases moving forward.

In the
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
____________________ Nos. 24-3060, 24-3061, 24-3062 & 24-3063
CALEB BARNETT, et al.,
v.
KWAME RAOUL, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
Defendants-Appellants. ____________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Nos. 3:23-cv-209, 3:23-cv-141, 3:23-cv-192 & 3:23-cv-215 — Stephen P. McGlynn, Judge.
____________________
ARGUED SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 — DECIDED JULY 9, 2026 ____________________
Before BRENNAN, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.
ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. In 2023, six months after a mass shooting at a Chicago suburb’s Independence Day parade left seven dead and dozens more wounded, Illinois enacted the Protect Illinois Communities Act. Among other things, the

Statement of U.S. Attorney Andrew S. Boutros regarding the success of Operation New Dawn:

“I am proud of the work the federal anti-violence apparatus of Chicago achieved in roughly 60 days this spring and summer as Operation New Dawn: 484 arrests, of which 179 were newly charged defendants across 140 newly filed cases, and 305 were fugitives brought to justice. Each federal agency brings with them unique expertise, experiences, and backgrounds, and with this initiative, we united our talents and resources towards one common goal of a safer Chicagoland.”

Here’s a look back at some of what we did:

ORDER
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA by its attorney, ANDREW S.
BOUTROS, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, having
moved this Court to Seal the Complaint, Affidavit, Arrest Warrants, and Motion to
Seal, and having demonstrated good cause in support of its motion,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Complaint, Affidavit, Arrest Warrants,
and Motion to Seal be sealed until the time of arrest of all defendants in this case or
further order of the Court, whichever occurs earlier. This Order does not prohibit law
enforcement personnel from disclosing the Complaint, Affidavit, and Arrest Warrants
as necessary to facilitate the enforcement of criminal law, including the execution of
the warrant, or to any federal official to assist the official receiving the information
in the performance of that official’s duties.
ENTER:

Honorable LAURA K. MCNALLY
United States Magistrate Judge

07/01/2026 7 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Laura K. McNally: On 7/1/26 at approximately 8:00 a.m., the Government called Chambers to state that it would be seeking to unseal the Complaint with redactions. The Government represented that it needed to obtain a ruling within the next 15 minutes. The Government then hand-delivered a set of proposed redactions to Chambers. At that time, no formal motion was tendered to the Court. Given imminent hearings in other criminal matters, the Court was not able to take up the oral request at that time, and the seal remained in place. At approximately 1:25 p.m., the Government sent a written motion to unseal to the Court's proposed order inbox. The Court informed the Government at 4:57 p.m. that it would take up the motion when it was formally filed on the docket. As of 7:00 p.m. on 7/1/26, no formal filing has appeared on the docket. The Government is ordered to formally file the motion that was submitted informally to the Court's proposed order inbox. The Government's motion is denied. In seeking to seal the entire Complaint on 6/29/26, the Government represented to this Court that the public filing of the Complaint before the arrest warrants could be executed could alert the defendants and result in their flight and the destruction of evidence. 2 The Court relied on the sincerity and truthfulness of that representation, and it granted the motion. 3 As of the date of the motion to unseal, less than 48 hours after the arrest warrants were issued, the Government represents that the defendants have not all been arrested. One defendant remains at large. The Government has offered no reason to believe that its prior concerns regarding flight or the destruction of evidence have been addressed, and the modest redactions proposed in the motion are, in the Court's view, insufficient to achieve the protections sought by the Government in their initial motion to entirely seal the Complaint. The Court will entertain a renewed motion to…

07/08/2026 23 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Laura K. McNally: The Court has reviewed the Government's Position Paper in Advance of July 9, 2026 Status Hearing 22 , which "asks that the Court strike the July 9, 2026, hearing date." The Court interprets this request as a motion to strike the hearing 10 . The motion is denied. Mailed notice (McNally, Laura) (Entered: 07/08/2026)

I. Background
On June 29, 2026, this Court signed a complaint and arrest warrants charging defendants Josue Pacheco Torres, Kleiver Monasterio Briceno, and Julian Pachano with kidnapping resulting in death and kidnapping conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a) and (c). Dkt. 1. The affidavit submitted along with the complaint set forth facts establishing that defendants participated in the conspiracy in connection with their involvement in Tren de Aragua (“TdA”), a violent transnational gang that the Executive Branch designated as a foreign terrorist organization in February 2025. Dkt. 1.
That same day, the Court granted the government’s motion to seal the case. The sealing order stated in relevant part:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Complaint, Affidavit, Arrest Warrants, and Motion to Seal be sealed until the time of arrest of all defendants in this case or further order of the Court, whichever occurs earlier. This Order does not prohibit law enforcement personnel from disclosing the Complaint, Affidavit, and Arrest Warrants as necessary to facilitate the enforcement of criminal law, including the execution of the warrant, or to any federal official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official’s duties.
Dkt. 3 (emphasis added). That same day, law enforcement began an operational plan to apprehend the two defendants who were not in federal custody.
The next day, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois was invited to Washington, D.C. for a July 1, 2026, press event, which he learned he would be attending for the first time on June 30, 2026. The event focused on the enforcement of criminal law against TdA, and was led by the Acting Attorney General of the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case No. 26 CR 345
Hon. Laura K. McNally Magistrate Judge
GOVERNMENT’S POSITION PAPER IN ADVANCE OF JULY 9, 2026, STATUS HEARING
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, ANDREW S. BOUTROS, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully submits this position paper in advance of the July 9, 2026, hearing regarding the sealing order entered in this case. Dkt. 10. As detailed below, (i) the government acted in good faith, (ii) with the intent to comply with this Court’s sealing order, and (iii) complied with the Court’s order, which allowed for the government to disclose the complaint, affidavit, and arrest warrant “as necessary to facilitate the enforcement of criminal law.” Dkt. 3. Given all of this—as well as the separation of powers, deliberative process, pre-decisional, and interagency privilege concerns raised by the Court’s potential inquiry—the government respectfully submits that the Thursday, July 9, 2026, hearing should be terminated without further action by this Court.

I. Hyde Amendment Motion
Discussion
The Hyde Amendment motions are not ripe for decision and may never be. The United States does not intend to contest defendants’ entitlement to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter as permitted by statute. (To be clear, the United States’ litigation decision not to challenge the defendant’s entitlement to fees, like in any typical settlement, does not concede that the United States has acted or done anything to warrant those fees.) The parties are currently attempting to work out the amount of recoverable fees and expenses. This court should take defendants’ Hyde Amendment motions under advisement while the parties attempt to amicably resolve this civil issue in good faith. The United States received the last of the former defendants’ fee submissions the day before this response was being filed, so the parties are now in a position to negotiate.
II. Discovery
Discovery related to defendants’ Hyde Amendment motions is not warranted under the circumstances of this case nor under applicable law. Defendants sought discovery, in their own words, to give them the “opportunity to demonstrate the bad faith, vexatious, and/or frivolous nature of this misguided prosecution.” Dkt. 206. But they will not be required to make that showing, so there is no reason or basis under the statute or otherwise to conduct that discovery.

ORDER
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA by its attorney, ANDREW S. BOUTROS, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, having moved this Court to Seal the Complaint, Affidavit, Arrest Warrants, and Motion to Seal, and having demonstrated good cause in support of its motion,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Complaint, Affidavit, Arrest Warrants, and Motion to Seal be sealed until the time of arrest of all defendants in this case or further order of the Court, whichever occurs earlier. This Order does not prohibit law enforcement personnel from disclosing the Complaint, Affidavit, and Arrest Warrants as necessary to facilitate the enforcement of criminal law, including the execution of the warrant, or to any federal official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official’s duties.
ENTER:
Honorable LAURA K. MCNALLY United States Magistrate Judge
DATE: June 29, 2026

07/01/2026 7 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Laura K. McNally: On 7/1/26 at approximately 8:00 a.m., the Government called Chambers to state that it would be seeking to unseal the Complaint with redactions. The Government represented that it needed to obtain a ruling within the next 15 minutes. The Government then hand-delivered a set of proposed redactions to Chambers. At that time, no formal motion was tendered to the Court. Given imminent hearings in other criminal matters, the Court was not able to take up the oral request at that time, and the seal remained in place. At approximately 1:25 p.m., the Government sent a written motion to unseal to the Court's proposed order inbox. The Court informed the Government at 4:57 p.m. that it would take up the motion when it was formally filed on the docket. As of 7:00 p.m. on 7/1/26, no formal filing has appeared on the docket. The Government is ordered to formally file the motion that was submitted informally to the Court's proposed order inbox. The Government's motion is denied. In seeking to seal the entire Complaint on 6/29/26, the Government represented to this Court that the public filing of the Complaint before the arrest warrants could be executed could alert the defendants and result in their flight and the destruction of evidence. 2 The Court relied on the sincerity and truthfulness of that representation, and it granted the motion. 3 As of the date of the motion to unseal, less than 48 hours after the arrest warrants were issued, the Government represents that the defendants have not all been arrested. One defendant remains at large. The Government has offered no reason to believe that its prior concerns regarding flight or the destruction of evidence have been addressed, and the modest redactions proposed in the motion are, in the Court's view, insufficient to achieve the protections sought by the Government in their initial motion to entirely seal the Complaint. The Court will entertain a renewed motion to…

07/02/2026 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Laura K. McNally: For the reasons stated on the record in Court on 7/2/26, the Court has serious concerns regarding the Government's compliance on 7/1/26 and 7/2/26 with the order sealing this case 3 . Accordingly, on the Court's own motion, this matter is set for hearing on 7/9/26 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1743 for further discussions about potential violations of the sealing order. United States Attorney Andrew Boutros is ordered to attend this hearing in person. Defendant's presence is waived at this hearing. Mailed notice (McNally, Laura) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

07/01/2026 235 MOTION by USA for extension of time as to Michael Rabbitt, Katherine Marie Abughazaleh, Andre Martin, Catherine Sharp, Brian Straw as to miscellaneous other, 225 , motion for miscellaneous relief, 226 , miscellaneous other, 227 Government's Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Its Response to Motions in Dkt. 225, 226, 227
(Whalen, Nathaniel) (Entered: 07/01/2026)
07/01/2026 236 NOTICE of Motion by Nathaniel Luke Whalen for presentment of motion for extension of time, 235 before Honorable April M. Perry on 7/7/2026 at 10:30 AM. (Whalen, Nathaniel) (Entered: 07/01/2026)
07/02/2026 237 MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: Motion for extension of time 235 is granted. The Government's response to Defendants' motions 225 , 226 , and 227 is due by 7/21/2026. The reply date is extended to 8/4/2026. There is no need for the parties to appear at the motion hearing scheduled for 7/7/2026. Mailed notice. (jcc,) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

JUST IN: The Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Chicago Field Office was just removed from his position.

"I've never backed down from a fight, as long as it meant our personnel could continue serving the FBIs mission. Unfortunately, that has proven unpopular over time and my

07/01/2026 31 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Keri L. Holleb Hotaling: The Court is in receipt of the Government's Opening Brief on Sanctions Hearing and Request for Continuance [Dkt. 30]. After review of the same, the Court hereby grants the Government's request for a brief continuance of the July 2, 2026 hearing. Counsel for Mr. Fagan, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Toney shall file a response brief, if any, addressing some or all of the issues raised by the Government on or before July 10, 2026. The Court will reset the hearing date as appropriate upon review of any briefs filed by counsel for Messrs. Fagan, Edwards, and Toney. (rbf, ) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

11 Indeed, the government moved so quickly to dismiss the complaint that the government itself did not appreciate the full context of the video and how it fit into the events that transpired that day. Specifically, the video in question captures approximately the last 25 seconds of the encounter between the TFO and Edwards prior to the shooting. Of course, the

GOVERNMENT’S OPENING BRIEF ON SANCTIONS HEARING AND REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, ANDREW S. BOUTROS, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully submits this opening brief concerning the hearing on sanctions ordered by this Court on June 18, 2026, as supplemented by the Court’s order of June 26, 2026 (hereinafter “the Court’s Orders”). Dkt. Nos. 21, 28.
I. SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENT’S BRIEF
The government’s position is that this Court lacks the authority to conduct the hearing contemplated by the Court’s Orders. First, the Court’s authority to conduct a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), was mooted by dismissal of the criminal complaint. Second, this Court lacks the authority to hold any persons in contempt under the Federal Magistrates Act; at most, the Court can certify the matter to the district court for further proceedings. Third, this Court lacks authority to make any sanctions finding, as this authority too is exclusively vested in the district court.

“We will not back down from defending Cook County’s long-standing ban on assault weapons. These weapons of war are designed to inflict the maximum amount of carnage and destruction and have no place in our communities. Countless victims have already endured the devastating impact of gun violence. We will defend this lawful ordinance before this nation’s highest court to continue protect the people of Cook County.”

QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amend- ments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.

CERTIORARI GRANTED
25-238 ) VIRAMONTES, CUTBERTO, ET AL. V. COOK COUNTY, IL, ET AL.
GRANT, EDDIE, ET AL. V. HIGGINS, RONNELL, ET AL.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted as to the
question presented by the petition in No. 25-238. The cases are
consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral
argument.
GRAND, DANIEL V. UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, OH, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
APPLE INC. V. EPIC GAMES, INC.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to
Question 1 presented by the petition.

06/25/2026 323 RESPONSE by USA to MOTION by Yale Schiff for order
309 (Shin, Minje) (Entered: 06/25/2026)
06/29/2026 324 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland as to Yale Schiff: Defendant's motion for compassionate release is set for 7/1/26 at 9:45 AM. AUSA Shin is directed to attend. The Court will be requesting defense counsel to waive defendant's appearance. Mailed notice. (jg, ) (Entered: 06/29/2026)

18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

e. As part of its investigation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation obtained information that defendant MERCADO was a member and an administrator of certain Signal messaging groups that included members who appeared to communicate with others regarding the planned UFC Event attack.

2. Between on or about June 13, 2026, and June 14, 2026, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
ALEXANDER INIGUEZ MERCADO,
defendant herein, with the intent to impede, obstruct, and influence an investigation and proper administration of a matter within the jurisdiction of a department and agency of the United States, namely, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and in relation to and contemplation of such investigation, did knowingly alter, destroy, and conceal a record and tangible object, namely, electronic data on Cellular Telephone 1 relating to defendant’s Signal account by uninstalling the Signal application on said
electronic device;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1519.

The SPECIAL JANUARY 2026 GRAND JURY charges: 1. At times material to this indictment:
a. Signal was a free messaging application that stored users’ messages locally on the users’ electronic devices and provided for end-to-end encryption of communications. Uninstalling the Signal application on a user’s electronic device would delete the user’s Signal messages that were stored within the application on the device.
b. Defendant ALEXANDER INIGUEZ MERCADO was a resident of Chicago, Illinois. Defendant MERCADO was the owner and user of Cellular Telephone 1. Defendant MERCADO was also the user of a Signal account, which defendant accessed using Cellular Telephone 1.
c. The Federal Bureau of Investigation
was a federal law enforcement agency housed within the U.S. Department of Justice, with responsibilities that included domestic intelligence and law enforcement investigations.

06/22/2026 321 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: The Government produced grand jury transcripts for in camera, ex parte review. The Court orders the Government to produce the grand jury transcripts to Defendants Yale and Jason Schiff under seal by 6/24/26. The transcripts are to be treated as sensitive and under seal. The government does not oppose production to Defendants. Mailed notice. (jg, ) (Entered: 06/22/2026)
06/23/2026 322 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: The Court has received an email from Defendant Yale Schiff's counsel regarding transmittal of the grand jury transcripts to his client. The Court understands the Government does not object to counsel sharing the transcripts with Yale or Jason Schiff provided the documents are treated as sensitive and under seal. Defense counsel and the Government are to confer regarding transmitting the documents to Yale and Jason Schiff. Failure by either Defendant to treat the documents as sensitive and under seal pursuant to this Court's order will result in sanctions for Defendant. Mailed notice. (jg, ) (Entered: 06/23/2026)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v.
Yale Schiff
No. 19 CR 474-1
Judge Mary M. Rowland
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, ANDREW S. BOUTROS, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, hereby provides its response in opposition to defendant Yale Schiff’s motion for compassionate release.1 R. 309 (“Def. Br.”). As set forth in greater detail below, the government elects not to invoke any infirmity in defendant’s proof of exhaustion and concedes that defendant’s motion for compassionate release has established an extraordinary and compelling reason for considering a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and would not be inconsistent with the pertinent factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
1 The government’s response is based solely on the merits of defendant’s emergency motion for compassionate release, R. 309, which was filed on the docket on June 1, 2026. This response does not incorporate any position as to defendant’s emergency motion to produce grand jury transcripts, filed on June 8, 2026 (R. 313), or as to any future relief defendant may seek as the result of the latter motion. R. 321, 322.

GOVERNMENT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, ANDREW S.
BOUTROS, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, hereby moves for a 30-day extension of time in which to file a petition for rehearing or
rehearing en bane in this case, to and including July 29, 2026.
The judgment in this case was entered on June 15, 2026, and unless the
time is extended, a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc would be due
on or before June 29, 2026. An extension of 30 days is necessary to allow the
Office of the Solicitor General an opportunity to determine whether, and to
what extent, the government will file a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc in this case. See 28 C.F.R. § 0.20(b).
Case: 25-2349
Document: 64
Filed: 06/23/2026
Pages: 3
Accordingly, the government respectfully requests a 30-day extension of
time to and including July 29, 2026, within which to file a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc.
The government has conferred with counsel for defendants Michael
McClain and Anne Pramaggiore, who state that the defense does not oppose the relief sought in this motion.
Respectfully submitted.
ANDREW S. BOUTROS
United States Attorney
By:
Is/ Julia K. Schwartz
JULIA K. SCHWARTZ
Chief of Appeals, Criminal Division

06/22/2026 124 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman as to Heriberto Carbajal-Flores: Status hearing held on 6/22/2026. Counsel for the government reported that based on some events that have occurred, counsel received a phone call from defendant's counsel requesting disclosures of the Grand Jury. Counsel produced the Grand Jury transcript of one witness portion and will soon produce the minutes for defendant's review and possible filing of pretrial motion. An in-person status hearing is set for 8/31/2026 at 10:30 AM. Time is excluded to 8/31/2026 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(i) with no objections. Mailed notice. (ym) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

06/22/2026 321 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: The Government produced grand jury transcripts for in camera, ex parte review. The Court orders the Government to produce the grand jury transcripts to Defendants Yale and Jason Schiff under seal by 6/24/26. The transcripts are to be treated as sensitive and under seal. The government does not oppose production to Defendants. Mailed notice. (jg, ) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

While I appreciate U.S. Attorney Boutros finally recognizing there is a credibility problem at his U.S. Attorney’s Office, make no mistake that he and others had advance knowledge of these issues for months and did nothing to “remediate” the problem when it became known to them and instead attempted to redact their way out of trouble. I do not trust those whose first instinct is to hide the truth to design the process of remediating its wrongs.

government hereby states that as part of that Phase II Remediation Plan and given what appears to be a high error rate in this experienced prosecutor’s grand jury presentations, the government is, and will be, conducting an individualized review and assessment of all available grand jury minutes of the prosecutor who indicted this case from the time when the prosecutor joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2007 to the present and in those cases where the prosecutor served as lead counsel. Conducting this review will be consistent with the U.S. Attorney’s Phase II Remediation Plan, which when finalized and launched will include a review that ensures that Assistant U.S. Attorneys who have appeared before the grand jury in the Northern District of Illinois during the relevant time frame and/or as otherwise being defined, have acted in accordance with law and consistent with the highest ethical standards.4
10. Although substantial work is involved in the government’s ongoing process of working through its records as well as court records to identify all cases that will be subject to review and assessment for the experienced prosecutor, the government estimates that this process will likely lead to the review of grand jury minutes in more than 100 grand jury cases the experienced prosecutor indicted in the grand jury since 2007. In addition, the volume of grand jury minutes in the larger Phase II Remediation Plan review and assessment that is being defined is comfortably expected to be in the four figures, but that determination is still underway and is
just submit the transcripts “as they are.” Under no circumstances are prosecutors to redact what they understand or perceive as the irrelevant portions of the transcripts submitted to the Court for review. That way the Court never receives redacted transcripts. In addition, if the materials are being publicly filed or produced to the defense, federal prosecutors may still redact, as needed, for witness security, personal i…

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) ) ALLA ISHKIRAT, ) TAWFIK SALMAN, ) aka “Mike”, ) LARRY MONEYHAM, and ) LONNIEL NELSON, JR., ) aka “Rudy” )
25 CR 562
Judge Robert W. Gettleman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT WITH PREJUDICE
The United States of America, by and through ANDREW S. BOUTROS, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully moves this Court pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to dismiss with prejudice the indictment as to all defendants, namely, defendants Alla Ishkirat, Tawfik Salman, a/k/a “Mike,” Larry Moneyham, and Lonniel Nelson, Jr., a/k/a “Rudy.” In support of this motion, the government states as follows:
1. “The case law makes clear that because grand jury proceedings are entitled to a strong presumption of regularity, a defendant seeking disclosure of grand jury information under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) bears the heavy burden of establishing that particularized and factually based grounds exist to support the proposition that irregularities in the grand jury proceedings may create a basis for dismissal of the indictment.” United States v. Salley, No. 19-cr-797-1, 2021 WL 2915119, at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 12, 2021) (Dow, J.) (citation modified).
2. On September 11, 2025, defendants Ishkirat, Salman, Moneyham, and Nelson were each charged by indictment with one count of arson, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i).
3. Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides in pertinent part that “[t]he government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment. . . .” The government

blocks south of the location of the transaction. The law enforcement officer pursuing Edwards announced his police presence and told Edwards to stop. Edwards told the law enforcement officer words to the effect of "I'm not going back to jail," and a physical altercation ensued between Edwards and the law enforcement officer. According to the law enforcement officer pursuing Edwards, Edwards struck the law enforcement officer multiple times about his face and body with his fists. In response, the law enforcement officer shot Edwards with his department issued firearm. Edwards was then taken to a hospital for treatment.

Late last week the government filed a criminal complaint against multiple individuals arising out of an attempted armed robbery and assault on federal officers occurring on June 9, 2026. The facts are fluid and developing, and multiple investigations are ongoing and more facts will be forthcoming. Our decision to dismiss the complaint today should not be read at all as a retreat of this case or the events giving rise to charges.

06/18/2026 23 OBJECTION by USA to text entry, 20 Government Objection to Unsealing Exhibit 2 (Fiedler, Luke) (Entered: 06/18/2026)
06/18/2026 24 ORDER as to Amir A Fagan, Demond Edwards, and Chashonn Toney signed by the Honorable Keri L. Holleb Hotaling on 6/18/2026: For the reasons stated in the attached order, the sealed exhibits filed at Dkts. 15 , 16 , 18 are hereby UNSEALED. This order will become effective at 8:00 p.m. CT today, June 18, 2026. Once unsealed, digital exhibits can be ordered through the Clerk's Office. Electronic copies of each video can be ordered through the Clerk's Office Certified Copy Desk (CCD) by emailing: CCD_ILND@ilnd.uscourts.gov. An invoice will be emailed to the customer, and the customer will be charged in accordance with the Fee Schedule set forth by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Each digital exhibit is $33. Once payment has been processed, you will receive a URL via email to download the exhibit(s). Order to enter. Emailed notice (cn). (Entered: 06/18/2026)

I will be frank. I've never seen something like that
23 in a filing with the Court. I know I've only been on the bench
24 a few years, but I have been up here for a few years, and I see
25 a lot of criminal things. You know, we're on duty all the
time. I've never seen something like that. So I'd like to
2 understand that better. That's why I wanted someone here from
3 the front office because, as I said, I have more questions
4 about this.

Among other things, the transcripts reflect AUSA A: (1) repeatedly and improperly vouched for witness credibility and the strength of the government’s case, (2) engaged in improper comments to grand jurors about her personal opinions regarding defendant’s guilt, extrajudicial facts, and the strength of the government's case prior to deliberations,5 (3) making improper comments to grand jurors and chilling other grand jurors from asking questions, (4), and the cultivation of personal relationships with grand jurors in a manner that risked influencing and undermining their independent judgment.6
While some of the misconduct was nuanced, some more blatant, viewed collectively, it demonstrates a sustained effort to improperly steer, influence, and shape grand jury decision-making rather than present evidence in a neutral and impartial manner allowing for a fair probable cause determination by the grand jury. Moreover, the misconduct is not isolated, rather, what was once hoped to be a one-off has become a much larger problem.
Dismissal with prejudice is therefore warranted based on this serious and pervasive misconduct by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in this case and others. The misconduct identified here is not an isolated incident attributable to mistake or negligence. It reflects a recurring pattern that has now infected multiple prosecutions presented to the same grand jury by the same prosecutor. Lesser sanctions would neither remedy the prejudice suffered by Mr. Ishkirat nor adequately deter future abuses of the grand jury process. To protect the integrity of these proceedings and to curtail further governmental misconduct, this Court should dismiss the indictment with prejudice.

5 Some conversations between AUSA A and the grand jury were audio recorded and not transcribed as they occurred after the formal presentation had ended and the court-reporter stopped typing.
6 Defense counsel reserves the right to supplement upon receiving additional materials.

MS. MECKLENBURG: Okay. I'm feeling the skepticism already. Are you going to be able to listen with an open mind? Tell me the truth.
GRAND JUROR: I -- no.
MS. MECKLENBURG: Okay. Then you have to
go --
GRAND JUROR: I heard this case like last week and I thought it was a crock of shit then and I still think it is.

With me today is Matthew Skiba. Matt is my partner on this case, and he hasn't
been in the office very long. He has been a great partner. I'm very lucky to have him. So this is an interesting case.
THE COURT REPORTER: Can you go to
the mic?
MS. MECKLENBURG: Yes. This is a very interesting case. It's a little different.
I purposely asked if I could wait for the Thursday grand jury. I did.
Matt.will vouch for me. I said I want to go in front of the Thursday grand jury
because I know you and I trust you and yoU know me and you trust me, and I would never ask you to charge somebody if I didn't think there was probable cause and you know you've asked me before "Well, what about this person?" And I said "I

Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin’s June 16, 2026, letter to the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility and to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission is incomplete, ill-informed, and severely distorted. There is no doubt that both OPR and the ARDC will look into the Broadview Six prosecution, a process that we fully support. When they do so, we are confident that upon careful, unbiased consideration, neither entity will find misconduct by the United States Attorney because there was none.

-Andrew S. Boutros, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DESIGNATE A SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE AND, IF WARRANTED BY THE FACTS, PROSECUTE RESPONSIBLE PERSONS FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42, Defendants Michael Rabbitt, Katherine Marie Abughazaleh, Andre Martin, Brian Straw and Catherine Sharp (“Defendants”), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully request this Court appoint special counsel to investigate the misconduct of certain individuals from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois and, if the evidence supports it, prosecute such individuals for criminal contempt. Those who should be investigated for their conduct during the grand jury proceedings and the ensuing cover-up before this Court begin with the line Assistant United States Attorneys assigned to prosecute this case and further includes unidentified supervisory and advisory employees of the United States Attorney’s Office, and the Front Office, which includes Andrew Boutros, the United States Attorney as well as his supervisors in Washington, D.C.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR THE COURT TO CONDUCT A HEARING ON THE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN THIS CASE, AND FOR TARGETED DISCOVERY IN ADVANCE THEREOF
Defendants Michael Rabbitt, Katherine Marie Abughazaleh, Andre Martin, Brian Straw, and Catherine Sharp (“Defendants”), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully request that this Court order certain discovery be produced by the government, and then to hold an evidentiary hearing on the government misconduct in this case to discern the full factual record and inform any potential sanctions for that misconduct. In support of this Motion, Defendants state as follows:
INTRODUCTION
There is no doubt the Court can – and should – conduct an evidentiary hearing on sanctions for the prosecutorial misconduct in this case, both the misconduct that is already manifest, and additional misconduct which we anticipate is yet uncovered. It is axiomatic that courts have the authority (if not the obligation) to hold a hearing on misconduct that was perpetrated before it, including after the dismissal or

On June 5, 2026, counsel for the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office
emailed defense counsel that the government had decided it would not contest that
Defendants are entitled to their legal fees, albeit “without admitting or conceding to
the fact.” The government asked defense counsel to provide information contemplated
by local rules to engage in good faith discussions on the amount of fees and related
expenses. Defense counsel fully intend to provide this information and to engage in
those good faith discussions to reach agreement on the amount. However, as

“We appreciate the Seventh Circuit’s careful attention to this matter and respect its well-reasoned and thoughtful opinion. We are pleased that the Court agreed that the government presented ‘significant and compelling evidence’ at trial, and that a ‘properly instructed jury could have convicted the defendants on this record.’ Because the Seventh Circuit has stated that the government is ‘entitled to retry’ both defendants ‘at its discretion,’ we are weighing our options and will advise the District Court of our decision at the appropriate time.”

-Andrew S. Boutros, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois

Do not misread our opinion. We are not suggesting that Pramaggiore and McClain are innocent, only that their con- victions were flawed and that they have a right to see their sentences vacated. Yet because “[a] properly instructed jury could have convicted the defendants on this record,” a new trial is not foreclosed, “if the prosecutor chooses to press on.” Borrero, 771 F.3d at 977; see Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 14 (1978).
VACATED AND REMANDED

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman as to Mahmood Sami Khan (3), Suhaib Ahmad Chaudhry (4): Presentment of government's emergency unopposed motion to dismiss indictment with prejudice as to defendants Khan and Chaudhry set for 6/17/2026 is stricken and reset to 6/12/2026 at 2:00 PM as an in-person hearing in courtroom 1241. Mailed notice. (ym) (Entered: 06/12/2026)

GOVERNMENT’S EMERGENCY UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT WITH PREJUDICE AS TO DEFENDANTS KHAN AND CHAUDHRY
The United States of America, by its attorney, Andrew S. Boutros, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully moves this Court pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to dismiss with prejudice the indictment as to defendants Mahmood Sami Khan and Suhaib Ahmad Chaudhry only. In support of this motion, the government states as follows:
1. On June 12, 2025, defendants Khan and Chaudhry were charged in the indictment in this case. R. 1. Defendant Khan is charged in Counts Seven, Eight, Eleven, Thirteen, and Nineteen of the indictment. Defendant Chaudhry is charged in Count Nineteen of the indictment.
2. Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides in pertinent part that “[t]he government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment. . . .” The government moves this Court pursuant to Rule 48(a) to dismiss the indictment with prejudice as to defendants Khan and Chaudhry only. Specifically,

So I'm going to leave that to you. Before we start, I have to do a mia culpa, 21 22 23 24 25
because I'm the one who knows the rules, and I did something today that I'm not supposed to do. I had conversations with two Grand Jurors outside of the Grand Jury room. So I need to put it on the record.

Thanks. Did you hear them chanting?
A. Yes, I -- I heard them chanting.
Q. And I won't ask you specifically what you
Were you concerned that the windows would
15:30:35
15:31:02
15:31:21
break?
A. Yes. Definitely. I -- I was concerned
and -- and surprised that they didn't as hard as they were being struck, and I was concerned that if, you know, one of the windows was breaking I was probably going to be in a real -- a real dangerous situation.
A. Well, I mean I -- I thought I was going to get drug out of the vehicle and, you know, assaulted or beat down.
Q. And why did you think that? What did you think could happen?
19
20
21
22

MS. MECKLENBURG: I will say I'm a little disappointed that there are people who didn't want
to hear the agent. Disappointed.
GRAND JURY FOREPERSON: You know, I would
say one thing. When the USA (inaudible) -- was here 09:52:50 last week, the one thing he said that made so much
sense -- can I say it?
MS. MECKLENBURG: Yes.
GRAND JURY FOREPERSON: This is the accusatory phase, not the guilt-finding phase.
MS. MECKLENBURG: Right.
GRAND JURY FOREPERSON: So those are very different things, and our burden of proof is much lower than if we have a trial we have to prove that these people did something.
GRAND JUROR: To be fair, we only hear one half of the story. We don't hear the other half.
MS. MECKLENBURG: That's true. We can't -- say like when you only hear one half, of course whatever you say is going to sound good because we're only hearing from you. But -- I mean, absolutely. Yes. But I think that's a great point, and I'm glad that you told me, and I'll remember to say --

MS. MECKLENBURG: I kind of had that impression from last week, but thank you.
GRAND JUROR: Do you have any evidence other than the (inaudible) --
MS. MECKLENBURG: Have a good evening.
Pardon me?
GRAND JUROR: I'm (inaudible) -- no new
evidence?
MS. MECKLENBURG: I didn't say there is no new evidence.
(Inaudible.)
If you feel that you can't be -- then
excuse yourself. That's fine. There is still 16? 09:30:36

GRAND JUROR: Are you actually presenting any new actual facts or just a different viewpoint on your side?
MS. MECKLENBURG: Okay. I'm feeling the skepticism already. Are you going to be able to listen with an open mind? Tell me the truth.
GRAND JUROR: I -- no.
MS. MECKLENBURG: Okay. Then you have to
go --
GRAND JUROR: I heard this case like last week and I thought it was a crock of shit then and I still think it is.
MS. MECKLENBURG: Okay. Thank you for your opinion for everybody.

Legal

Privacy Policy Terms and Conditions

Contact

Follow

Bluesky Instagram Threads

Flashes for Bluesky Get it on the App Store