Documents Related to the Mueller Investigation

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, along with documents related to the report.

Any queries or additional documents should be directed to Quinta Jurecic at [email protected].

This page was last updated on May 6, 2019.

 

Appointment Order and Related Documents

On May 17, 2017, acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller III to serve as special counsel. 

The Mueller Report and Related Correspondence

On April 18, 2019, the 448-page Mueller report was released in partially-redaced form. 

Litigation Documents

 

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.

 

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.

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) 

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.

 

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.

 

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 tw motions to dismiss the case against them and the other alleged co-conspirators, both of which the district court has denied.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

  • Motion for Hearing Regarding Improper Disclosures by Government
  • Jury Verdict Form
  • Documents related to the outstanding counts
  • Documents related to sentencing
    • 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)
    • Government's Sentencing Memorandum  (02/15/2019)
    • Order Scheduling Sentencing for March 8, 2019 (02/19/2019)
    • Sentencing reset for 3/7/2019 at 03:30 PM in Alexandria Courtroom 900 before District Judge T. S. Ellis III. (02/26/2019)
    • Sentencing Memorandum by Paul J. Manafort, Jr (03/01/2019)
    • Government's Sentencing Reply Memorandum (3/5/2019)
    • Court's Sentencing (03/08/2019): 
    • 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)

    • 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.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (1:18-cv-00011)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (18-5193)

 

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)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (18-3052)

 

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.

 

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. 

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. 

 

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.

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.

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)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (18-3068)

  • 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)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (18-3071)

U.S. Supreme Court

The full docket is available on the Supreme Court's website. Key documents are available below.

Related Documents

  • Opinion granting in part and denying in part motion to unseal material including the identity of the unnamed company (04/01/2019)

 

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
  • Documents Relating to Arrest
  • Plea
    • 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)
  • Conditions of Release
  • Documents Relating to Admission of Stone’s Defense Lawyers in the District of Columbia
    • 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)
    • Notice of attorney appearance: Robert C. Buschel appearing for Roger Stone (01/25/2019)
    • Notice of attorney appearance: Grant J. Smith appearing for Roger Stone (01/27/2019)
    • 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)
    • Motion for admission of Robert Buschel pro hac vice (01/28/2019)
    • Motion for admission of Grant Smith pro hac vice (01/28/2019)
    • 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)
    • Notice of attorney appearance: L Peter Farkas appearing for Roger Stone (01/29/2019)
    • Amended motion for admission of Robert Buschel pro hac vice (01/29/2019)
    • Amended motion for admission of Grant Smith pro hac vice (01/29/2019)
    • 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)
    • 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
  • Documents Relating to Notice of Related Case
  • Documents Relating to Gag Orders
  • Jerome Corsi Amicus Brief
  • Documents Relating to the Timing of the Public Release of the Indictment
    • Stone’s motion requesting show cause order (02/13/2019)
    • 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)
    • Government’s response to Stone’s motion requesting show cause order (02/22/2019)
    • Stone’s response to government response to show cause request (02/22/2019)
    • 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)
    • Government’s response to Court’s questions (02/26/2019)
    • Order denying Stone's show cause motion (02/27/2019)
  • Documents Relating to Trial
  • Documents Regarding Mueller Report

U.S. v. Alexander van der Zwaan (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:18-cr-31)

Who is he? Alexander van der Zwaan, a Dutch citizen, was employed by the law firm Skadden Arps to work on a report commissioned by Paul Manafort on behalf of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2012. The report concerned the Ukrainian government’s prosecution of one of Yanukovych’s political rivals, former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, and was later criticized as an attempt to justify Tymoshenko’s wrongful imprisonment.

What are the charge? On Feb. 20, 2018, van der Zwaan pleaded guilty to making false statements to FBI agents during a Nov. 3, 2017 interview, regarding his communications with Rick Gates and Konstantin Kilimnik.

Where does the case stand? On April 3, 2018, Judge Amy Jackson Berman sentenced van der Zwaan to serve 30 days in prison and pay a $20,000 fine.

Sentencing held on 4/3/2018 as to ALEX VAN DER ZWAAN. Count 1: Sentenced to Thirty (30) days incarceration, followed by Two (2) months of supervised release. Special Assessment of $100.00 was imposed and a fine of $20,000.00 was Ordered. Bond Status of Defendant: Defendant is permitted to voluntarily surrender when designated, with all previously imposed conditions of personal recognizance bond remaining in effect; Court Reporter: Janice Dickman; Defense Attorneys: William Schwartz, Laura Birger and Nicholas Flath; US Attorneys: Andrew Weissmann, Greg Donald Andres and Brian Richardson; Probation Officer: Kelly Kraemer-Soares. (jth) (Entered: 04/04/2018)