1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

-vsPETER ROGAN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 02 C 3310

Chicago, Illinois

February 16, 2010

9:00 o'clock a.m.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOHN W. DARRAH

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: HON. PATRICK J. FITZGERALD

United States Attorney

BY: MR. JOSEPH A. STEWART

Assistant United States Attorney

219 South Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

For the Defendants: MANDELL MENKES LLC

BY: MS. LINDSAY HARVEY LA VINE

333 West Wacker Drive

Suite 300

Chicago, Illinois 60606

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP

BY: MS. CATHERINE E. JAMES

333 West Wacker Drive

Suite 2600

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Mary M. Hacker

Official Court Reporter

United States District Court

219 South Dearborn Street, Suite 1212

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: (312) 435-5564

Case: 1:02-cv-03310 Document #: 477 Filed: 03/17/10 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:5868
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

THE CLERK: 02 C 3310, United States versus Peter

Rogan.

MS. LA VINE: Good morning, your Honor. Lindsay

Levine, L-A-V-I-N-E, on behalf of the claimants, Jerry and

Diane Whitlow.

THE COURT: Good morning, Ms. LaVine.

MS. JAMES: Good morning, your Honor. Catherine

James on behalf of 410 Montgomery.

THE COURT: Good morning, Ms. James.

MR. STEWART: Good morning, your Honor. Joseph

Stewart on behalf of the United States.

THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Stewart.

And we have the ongoing saga of the United States

of America versus Peter Rogan.

MR. STEWART: Correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: This comes on this morning on a motion

for clarification. Do you have any response to that,

Mr. Stewart?

MR. STEWART: Your Honor, we would like to file a

response. And there's another party also who couldn't be

here today, Gabriel Eisenberg with Howard Simon, who actually

says that he represents 410 Montgomery at this point.

THE COURT: I see. The plot is even thicker than

we thought?

MR. STEWART: Yes, the plot is getting thicker, but

Case: 1:02-cv-03310 Document #: 477 Filed: 03/17/10 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:5869
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

I hope it will come to some resolution.

You know, the summary judgment order that this

Court entered resolved most of the issues in this case.

There are still a few issues that need to be resolved.

THE COURT: Right.

Do you have any objection to going off the record

for a moment?

MR. STEWART: No, your Honor.

MS. LA VINE: No, your Honor.

MS. JAMES: No, your Honor.

(Discussion had off the record.)

THE COURT: Mr. Stewart has asked for 14 days to

file a response.

THE CLERK: March 2nd.

THE COURT: Seven days to reply?

MS. LA VINE: That's fine.

THE CLERK: March 9th.

THE COURT: And a status date as to that.

THE CLERK: April 14th at 9:00 a.m.

MR. STEWART: May I ask also for leave for Gabriel

Eisenberg of Howard Simon to file a response to the motion

for clarification?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. STEWART: Thank you.

MS. LA VINE: Your Honor, just to clarify, the

Case: 1:02-cv-03310 Document #: 477 Filed: 03/17/10 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:5870
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

Whitlows, their claim was that Jerry and Diane Whitlow each

owned a one-sixth interest in Taylor Row, which comes out to

being approximately $398,000, and that Jerry had an interest

in the profits from the sale of -- I believe it was his work

with the Jones Square Condominiums. And does that mean that

in lieu of the order that we -- that the Whitlows are

precluded from the money that has --

THE COURT: It means that the order is what the

order is, except that there is a motion to clarify the order

as to certain claimants, and I'm going to rule on that motion

to clarify.

MS. LA VINE: Your Honor, would you like us to file

a motion to --

THE COURT: I would not encourage you to do that,

but I suppose you have a right to do that.

MS. LA VINE: Okay.

MS. JAMES: Your Honor, I believe the order also

says that today we'll set a hearing date for the remaining

funds that --

THE COURT: No. I think what Mr. Stewart was

leading up to was that all the sides should probably meet and

confer regarding how to dispose of the remaining issues.

MR. STEWART: Yes.

And, your Honor, one thing that we would like to do

is, we would like to file a motion that addresses Judge

Case: 1:02-cv-03310 Document #: 477 Filed: 03/17/10 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:5871
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

Kennelly's ruling in that other proceeding --

THE COURT: Why don't we use that status date as a

scheduling date for further proceedings.

MR. STEWART: Okay.

THE COURT: Counsel, is that fair enough? Is that

what you were driving at?

MS. JAMES: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. STEWART: Okay. Then the next status date

would be?

THE CLERK: April 14th at 9:00 a.m.

MR. STEWART: Very good.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. LA VINE: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. STEWART: Thank you, your Honor.

(Which were all the proceedings heard.)

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript

from the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

/s/ Mary M. Hacker February 25, 2010

Mary M. Hacker Date

Official Court Reporter

Case: 1:02-cv-03310 Document #: 477 Filed: 03/17/10 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:5872