The case against the Klinefelters

5/26/2018 The case against the Klinefelters

1/16

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))

Plaintiff, ))

vs. ) Case No. 12-30035)

VERNON KLINEFELTER, and )GERALDINE KLINEFELTER, )

)Defendants. )

GOVERNMENTS MOTIONS IN LIMINE

The United States of America, by its attorneys, James A. Lewis, United States

Attorney for the Central District of Illinois, and Timothy A. Bass, Assistant United

States Attorney, respectfully submits its motion in limine. The government states the

following:

INTRODUCTION

On March 7, 2012, the defendants were indicted in this matter and charged with

one count of engaging in a scheme to defraud the Social Security Administration (SSA),

in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343, one count of concealment/failure to disclose

information, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(4), and one count of making a false

statement to the SSA, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(2), all in connection with

Defendant Vernon Klinefelters March 2004 application for more than $100,000 in social

security disability benefits that were received between 2005 and 2008. As charged in the

indictment, each of these offenses focuses on the defendants conduct and whether they

made false statements and/or failed to disclose material information concerning the

application for disability benefits, in which the defendants represented to the SSA,

E-FIWednesday, 06 November, 2013 04:46:0

Clerk, U.S. District Court

3:12-cr-30035-RM-TSH # 48 Page 1 of 16


2/16

2

among other things, that Defendant Vernon Klinefelter, a medical doctor, was disabled

and unable to work, did not supervise others, including Defendant Geraldine

Klinefelter, a nurse practitioner, and did not receive a level of income that would have

disqualified him from receiving such benefits.

The defendants have given notice to the government that they intend to call

Springfield Attorney Don Hanrahan, who represented the defendants before the SSA

concerning the very disability claim that is the subject of the offenses charged and

communicated with the government concerning the criminal investigation, to offer

expert opinions regarding the social security administration claims evaluation

process and determination. In addition, the defendants have also advised the

government that they intend to elicit evidence concerning the death of their 18 year-old

son, Paul, in November 2004 from a drug overdose, more than six months after the

defendants initially submitted the disability application. Finally, a part of the

governments evidence in this case involves confidential medical and personal

information, including billing information, of the defendants patients.

In this motion, the government respectfully requests that the Court:

(A) exclude the testimony of Attorney Hanrahan as plainly irrelevant underFed.R.Evid. 402, likely to cause unfair prejudice and confusion of the

issues under Fed.R.Evid. 403, and improper and unhelpful testimony from

an attorney for the defendant and non-expert witness concerning the

mental state of the defendants relating to an element of the offenses

charged under Fed.R.Evid. 702 and 704;

(B) exclude any evidence relating to the death of the defendants son, Paul, asirrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 402 and likely to cause unfair prejudice and

confusion of the issues under Fed.R.Evid. 403,

(C) admit summary testimony concerning the defendants patient recordsunder Fed.R.Evid. 1006 and Fed.R.Evid. 611, in lieu of admitting the actual

3:12-cr-30035-RM-TSH # 48 Page 2 of 16


3/16

3

patient records into evidence, to protect the confidentiality of medical and

personal information of the defendants patients.

FACTUAL SUMMARY

At trial, the government will present evidence to establish the following:

The federal Social Security Act and related laws establish a number of programs

which have the basic objective of providing for the needs of individuals and their

families. These programs include the Disability Insurance Benefits Program, which is

administered by the SSA. The purpose of the Disability Insurance Benefits Program is to

replace part of the earnings lost because of an actual physical or mental impairment, as

defined by federal law. Persons seeking disability benefits must file an application with

the SSA under penalty of perjury. In sum, to be eligible for disability benefits, a person

must be 1) totally (not partially) disabled and expected to be so disabled for a period of

at least 12 months; and 2) unable to engage in substantial gainful activity (i.e. unable to

work), which includes not earning a certain level of income established by SSA each

year. Monthly benefits are paid to eligible disabled persons and to eligible beneficiaries,

including children under the age of 18, throughout the period of disability. In

determining an applicants eligibility for disability insurance benefits, the SSA relies on

information provided by the applicants themselves or persons acting on the applicants

behalf concerning, among other things, their medical condition, their level and extent of

work activity, and their income.

Defendant Vernon Klinefelter was a licensed physician and surgeon in the State

of Illinois. He was married to Defendant Geraldine Klinefelter. Defendant Geraldine

Klinefelter was a registered nurse and an advanced practice nurse (nurse practitioner).

Both defendants together operated Abundant Life Medical Clinic (Abundant Life) in

Taylorville, Illinois. Under Illinois law, in order for an advanced practice nurse (such as

Defendant Geraldine Klinefelter) to provide services in a clinical practice (and hence

submit bills to patients and insurers), she was required to have a written collaborative

3:12-cr-30035-RM-TSH # 48 Page 3 of 16


4/16

4

agreement with and be supervised by a physician or podiatrist, which authorizes

categories of care, treatment or procedures to be performed by the advanced practice

nurse. See 225 ILCS 65/65-35 (b). Collaboration under this law means the

relationship under which an advanced practice nurse works with a collaborating

physicianin an active clinical practice to deliver health care services. Id. In

addition, the services to be provided by the advanced practice nurse shall be services

that the collaborating physicianis authorized to and generally provides to his or her

patients in the normal course of his or her clinical medical practice. Id. The

collaborative agreement under which Defendant Geraldine Klinefelter practiced was

with her husband, Defendant Vernon Klinefelter. This agreement was used for

everything from obtaining hospital access to malpractice insurance for Defendant

Geraldine Klinefelter, and, most importantly, allowing her to practice in the Abundant

Life Medical Clinic.

In addition to owning and operating Abundant Life, Defendant Vernon

Klinefelter was also the President/Medical Advisor of the Christian County

Department of Public Health and was on staff as an independent contractor at St.

Vincent Memorial Hospital in Taylorville (now known as Taylorville Memorial

Hospital). As such, he attended staff meetings and was allowed to admit and discharge

patients, use the hospital facilities, and bill his patients for the use of the hospital

facilities. As part of being on staff as an independent contractor with and granted

clinical privileges by St. Vincent Memorial Hospital, Defendant Vernon Klinefelter was

required to complete a re-credentialing form, which, among other things, required him

to describe his profession, the nature of his medical practice, and his current medical

condition.

Beginning in approximately March 2004 and continuing to approximately

January 2008, in the Central District of Illinois, and elsewhere, the defendants

knowingly devised and participated in a scheme to defraud the SSA and to obtain its

3:12-cr-30035-RM-TSH # 48 Page 4 of 16


5/16

5

money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations,

promises, and material omissions.

As part of the scheme, on or about March 31, 2004, April 4, 2004, and April 28,

2004, the defendants falsely represented to the SSA as part of an application for

disability insurance benefits that Defendant Vernon Klinefelter was unable to work

because of [his] disabling condition on December 31, 2002. In support of such false

statement and in describing his medical condition, the defendants represented, among

other things, that Defendant Vernon Klinefelter suffered from many disabilities,

including a seizure disorder, that, among other things, caused major problems with

[his] memory and prevented him from "resolv[ing] simple mathmatics [sic].

As a further part of the scheme, the defendants falsely represented to the SSA

that Defendant Vernon Klinefelter stopped working on December 31, 2002, could not

take care of [his] patients any longer, and he did not supervise other people in his

work. The defendants further falsely represented to the SSA that Defendant Vernon

Klinefelter was no longer able to make rational decisions, could no longer take care of

his patients, had not been actively engaged in the business since December 31, 2002,

when he turned over all his duties to his spouse, and makes no decisions and earns no

income from the business.

As a further part of the scheme and in response to a request from the SSA for

further information concerning Defendant Vernon Klinefelters application for

disability insurance benefits, on or about December 27, 2004, the defendants falsely

represented to the SSA that, among other things, Defendant Vernon Klinefelter was

not able to work hardly at all for five months after 10 day hospitalization in Feb. 2003,

he [w]orked one to two afternoons per week when able, seeing one to three carefully

selected patients, he worked two afternoons per week and saw two or three patients

on average when he was able to work, and he did not make any management

decisions following his illness or injury.

3:12-cr-30035-RM-TSH # 48 Page 5 of 16


6/16

6

The government will present evidence to establish that at least one or more of

these statements and actions, however, made solely for the purpose of obtaining

disability benefits, were false and fraudulent. Defendant Vernon Klinefelter was able to

work and was: actively working as a medical doctor; operating his medical clinic,

Abundant Life; supervising Defendant Geraldine Klinefelter, a nurse practitioner, as

required by law; serving on staff and admitting, treating, and discharging patients at St.

Vincent Memorial Hospital in Taylorville, including representing to the hospital on two

occasions in July 2003 and April 2005 as part of the re-credentialing process that his

medical condition should not present problems with practice as condition is controlled

with medication, was good or controlled. The defendant also supervised the

billing of Defendant Geraldine Klinefelter for federal Medicare and Medicaid and

private insurance reimbursements; and earned income substantially above the annual

maximum SSA thresholds for the years 2003 to 2008.

As a result of the scheme, the defendants caused the SSA to provide disability

insurance payments for the period June 2003 to January 2008 to Defendant Vernon

Klinefelter and his son, Paul, totaling $107,700. The defendants son Paul, age 18, died of

a drug overdose in November 2004, more than six months after the defendants filed the

disability application with SSA in March 2004.

In 2007, the SSA initiated a criminal investigation of the defendants concerning

the application for disability benefits. SSA later disallowed all of the disability benefits

paid to the defendants and determined that Defendant Vernon Klinefelter was

ineligible for such benefits. The defendants appealed SSAs denial of benefits.

In 2008, as reflected in the attached Exhibit 1 to this motion, Springfield Attorney

Don Hanrahan represented the defendants before the SSA concerning the denial of their

disability claim. In addition, as part of the criminal investigation, Attorney Hanrahan,

with the defendants prior criminal defense counsel, communicated with the

government and advocated on their behalf against the filing of criminal charges.

3:12-cr-30035-RM-TSH # 48 Page 6 of 16


7/16

7

Attorney Hanrahans communication with the government, and the nature of the

testimony from him the defendants intend to present at trial, are set forth in the

attached Exhibit 2 to this motion.

ARGUMENT

Exclusion of Expert Testimony

The defendants are charged in the indictment with one count of engaging in a

scheme to defraud the SSA, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343, one count of

concealment/failure to disclose information, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(4), and

one count of making a false statement to the SSA, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(2), all

in connection with application for disability benefits filed in March 2004 with the SSA.

As charged in the indictment, each of these offenses focuses on the defendants conduct

and whether they made false statements and/or failed to disclose material information

concerning the application for disability benefits to SSA. As to each offense, the

government is required to prove either a knowingly false statement or a knowing

failure to disclose material information. See Pattern Criminal Jury Instruction of the

Seventh Circuit, 18 U.S.C. 1343, 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(2).

The defendants have given notice to the government that they intend to call

Springfield Attorney Don Hanrahan to provide expert opinions regarding the SSA

claims evaluation process and determination. As reflected in the attached Exhibit 1 to

this motion, Attorney Hanrahan represented the defendants since at least January 2008

in their dealings with SSA concerning the denial of the very disability claim that is the

subject of the offenses charged. This representation began afterthe defendants became

aware that their conduct and statements in pursuing disability benefits from SSA was

being investigated by the Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Attorneys Office. As

part of this, Attorney Hanrahan accompanied by the defendants prior criminal defense

attorneys, communicated with the government concerning the criminal investigation

and potential charges now alleged in the indictment, during which Attorney Hanrahan

3:12-cr-30035-RM-TSH # 48 Page 7 of 16


8/16

8

advocated on behalf of the defendants that criminal charges not be pursued. The

summary of the anticipated testimony from Attorney Hanrahan is attached to this

motion as Exhibit 2 and is the very communication Attorney Hanrahan previously

presented to the government during the criminal investigation. Specifically, Attorney

Hanrahan, as an attorney for the defendants, is not presenting evidence or expert

opinions but rather is advocating on behalf of his clients as to whether they committed a

criminal offense. Such argument, from one of the defendants attorneys, is not at all

admissible expert evidence or testimony under Rules 702 and 704 of the Federal Rules

of Evidence and is plainly inadmissible.

Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence 702 provides:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,

training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise

if:

(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will

help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in

issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts

of the case.

Rule 704(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides,

In a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about

whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that

constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. Those matters

are for the trier of fact alone.

When confronted with potential expert testimony, this Court must perform a

gatekeeper: function, and only admit such testimony if (1) it is based on sufficient facts

3:12-cr-30035-RM-TSH # 48 Page 8 of 16


9/16

9

or data; (2) it is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) the witness has

applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Simply stated, the

testimony must be statistically valid (reliable) and relevant. See, e.g., United States v.

Allen,390 F.3d 944, 949 (7thCir. 2004); United States v. Lamarre, 248 F.3d 642, 647 (7thCir.

2001). In this case, the proposed testimony is neither.

As is evident from the exhibit, the substance of Mr. Hanrahans testimony is

essentially a rebuttal to the governments fact witnesses, and intended is to suggest that

Mr. Hanrahan is more aware of the policies and procedures of the SSA than those

individuals who actually workfor the government agency. 1The information provided

by the defendants in their application for benefits, as well as the representations made

by the defendants to the individuals who work for SSA is the relevant evidence as to

whether the statements were made by the defendants or not. It is up to the government

to prove the falsity of the statements. The defendant will have ample opportunity to

cross examine the witnesses to whom the statements were made regarding the

circumstance surrounding the statements, and inquire whether they followed SSA

policies correctly. An attorney, or any other advocate, should not be allowed to give

their opinion, disguised as evidence, as to whether the defendants actually made the

statements or not.

A prime example of the problems that would accompany such proposed

testimony is illustrated by the applications for benefits submitted by the defendants.

During the application process, defendant Geraldine Klinefelter represented to SSA

claims representative Karen Randazzo that Vernon Klinefelter was totally disabled and

unable to work, and had been in that condition since December 31, 2002. This

1Contrary to the defendants suggestion that the government will present the procedure

for processing disability claims from Rodney Haymon (a Special Agent for the SSAInspector General), the evidence will actually come from the employees of SSA thatreceived and processed the applications submitted by the defendants.

3:12-cr-30035-RM-TSH # 48 Page 9 of 16


10/16

10

information was entered into the system by the SSA claims representative, who is

prepared to testify that the entries were made contemporaneous with their

conversation. The information was then printed on a form (actually two forms, both of

which will be offered as exhibits) and the printed forms were sent to the Klinefelters for

review and verification. Defendant Vernon R. Klinefelter attested to correctness of the

information contained on those forms and submitted them to SSA.

The defendants intention is for Mr. Hanrahan to testify that the operative date of

December 31, 2002 was actually a date chosen by the SSA rather than a product of the

conversation between the representative and the Klinefelters, and that the language on

the form was not provided by either defendant, but was boilerplate language chosen

by SSA. No matter the depth of experience Mr. Hanrahan has with representing clients

in Social Security matters, unless he was present during the conversation and can testify

to events he witnessed and experienced, his testimony in representing other clients

before this agency has absolutely no value to a jury, and can only lead to confusion.

While the defendants should be free to examine the witnesses who took the

information, processed the applications and made decisions based on the facts before

them, they should not be able to present speculation as evidence from a witness who

can at best testify from limited and one-sided experience.

As second example, the defendant suggests that Mr. Hanrahan will testify that

the defendants made full disclosure to the SSA regarding the scope of work then being

performed by defendant Vernon Klinefelter. Again, this testimony would seek to

contradict the evidence to be presented by the actual SSA employees who received and

processed information that the defendants represented that Vernon Klinefelter was

completely unable to work. Hanrahans testimony would not tell the jury what was

disclosed, but, much as an advocate, would attempt to persuade the jury about the

impact these words should have had on SSA employees. Once again, these are subjects

on which the defendants may choose to cross examine SSA employees. They are

3:12-cr-30035-RM-TSH # 48 Page 10 of 16


11/16

11

certainly subjects that the defendants are free to argue within the confines of the rules

regarding opening statements and closing arguments. The rules of evidence, however,

do not allow a defendant to call his own attorney to the witness stand to present his

argument as evidence that a jury should consider.

In most cases dealing with expert testimony, a court must consider whether the

testimony has been subjected to the scientific method; it must rule out subjective belief

and unsupported speculation. This step requires inquiry into whether the reasoning

and methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid. Daubert v. Merrell

Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993). The Supreme Court has identified

several factors useful to evaluate the reliability of the methodology: (1) whether the

theory or technique can be or had been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has

been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known and potential rate for

error; and (4) the general acceptance of the theory. See Bradley v. Brown, 42 F.3d 434,

437 (7thCir. 1994). In this case, the testimony to be offered is not something that can be

scientifically tested, but consists only of an attorneys experience representing clients

before an agency of the government. It cannot be checked or verified, it is entirely

subjective with the attorney.

A court must also determine whether the expert testimony or evidence will assist

the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or a fact in issue. This step requires the

court to consider whether the proposed testimony fits the issue to which the expert is

testifying. United States v. Hall (Hall II),165 F.3d 1095, 1102 (7thCir. 1999), citing Daubert

at 591-93. Here, because the witnesses that actually participated in the event will be

present, testifying and subject to cross examination, the testimony of an attorney to

disagree with their actions, methods or conclusions would certainly not assist the trier

of fact. Either the defendants made certain representations to the SSA employees, or

they did not. This is a question for the jury to determine. Either the representations

3:12-cr-30035-RM-TSH # 48 Page 11 of 16


12/16

12

were false, as alleged, or they were not. Once again, this is an issue for the jury to

determine, and an attorneys opinion is not relevant to that determination.

Finally, expert testimony as to legal conclusions that will determine the outcome

of the case is inadmissible. Good Shepherd Manor Found., Inc. v. City of Momence, 323 F.3d

557, 564 (7th Cir.2003). In the Good Shepherd case, the district court did not allow the

testimony of an expert witness (a law professor and who works in urban planning), and

did not allow the testimony to the experts conclusions that citys actions violated a

law and other purely legal matters that could determine the outcome of the case. See

alsoUnited States v. Sinclair,74 F.3d 753, 757 n. 1 (7th Cir.1996); United States v. Caputo,

382 F.Supp.2d 1045, 1049 (N.D.Ill.2005) (An expert witness cannot offer an opinion on

what the law requires or permits because the judge, not the witnesses, instructs the jury

about the relevant law.). See also Thomas v. Sheahan, 514 F. Supp. 2d 1083, 1094 (N.D.

Ill. 2007)(expert's testimony to the ultimate legal conclusion in this casethat

Defendants were deliberately indifferent, or that County had a longstanding practice,

custom, or policy of condoning various alleged violations of inmates' rights held

inadmissible). Here, the defendants seek to offer testimony that the defendants words

and actions do not meet the legal standards of false or concealment. These

conclusions are, of course, matters that only the jury can decide.

Exclusion of Testimony Concerning the Death of the Defendants Son

The defendants have also advised the government that they intend to elicit

evidence concerning the death of their 18 year-old son, Paul, in November 2004 from a

drug overdose, more than six months after the defendants initially submitted the

disability application. Again, Rule 402 bars evidence that is irrelevant and Rule 403 bars

evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair

prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury. In addition, all criminal juries

are instructed that they should not be influenced by prejudice or sympathy. See Pattern

Criminal Jury Instruction of the Seventh Circuit 1.01.

3:12-cr-30035-RM-TSH # 48 Page 12 of 16


13/16

13

Here, the tragic death of the defendants son, which occurred more than six

months following their application for disability benefits, is plainly irrelevant to

whether the defendants committed the offenses charged. Moreover, that tragic event

will inevitably lead to sympathy for both defendants as parents and to confusing and

misleading the jury. Such evidence should therefore be excluded. United States v.

Adames, 56 F.3d 737, 746 (7thCir. 1995) (Scenes depicting Jones children opening

Christmas gifts would be emotionally charged and may have induced the jury to feel

sympathy for Jones or his children, emotional reactions that should not factor into the

jury's decision.

Admission of Summary Testimony

Part of the governments evidence showing that Defendant Vernon Klinefelter

was working while claiming that he was totally disabled will come from insurance

companies, as well as Medicare and Medicaid billing. These records will show that

during the relevant time period, thousands of individual claims were filed for services

provided to patients by Defendant Vernon Klinefelter, a medical doctor, by Defendant

Geraldine Klinefelter, a Nurse Practitioner, and by Abundant Life, which is registered

to both defendants under their collaborative agreement. Since Defendant Geraldine

Klinefelter could not practice medicine without the supervision and collaboration of

Defendant Vernon Klinefelter, the government intends to produce the claim records of

voluminous claims for services provided under the billing identifiers for both Vernon

Ray Klinefelter and Geraldine Klinefelter, as well as a billing identifier assigned to

Abundant Life. Realistically, the government cannot call all former patients to testify in

the trial or seriously attempt to analyze all of the patient files. Since the billing data is

kept by the insurance companies in electronic databases, the government intends to

introduce this data, which is downloaded onto portable storage devices (such as CD-

ROM or DVD), all of which has been provided to the defense, in order to present to the

jury the volume of claims for each billing entity. It is therefore anticipated that

3:12-cr-30035-RM-TSH # 48 Page 13 of 16


14/16

14

representatives from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, Medicare (Diana Barany

from Cahaba Safeguard Administrators and Nathan Kennedy from National

Government Services) and from the Illinois Department of Health and Family Services,

which administers the Medicaid program in Illinois, will testify as summary witnesses

regarding the data, as well as to the spreadsheets summarizing the electronic data

showing the claims submitted for services for the time period during which the

defendants claimed Defendant Vernon Klinefelter was disabled.

Protection of Private Health Information

Finally, the government intends to present evidence from various patient files

and billing data that may contain personally identifying information, as well as health

treatment records. For example, the government intends to call representatives of

Taylorville Memorial Hospital as witnesses to provide evidence that both defendants

treated patients admitted during the time period from 2003-2007. All of this

information has been presented to the defense in discovery. The logistics of a criminal

trial, however, make de-identifying page from every file and record in a case like this

virtually impossible. To alleviate this problem, the government requests that it be

permitted to present summary testimony from hospital officials concerning the patients

personal records, without actually introducing the records into evidence, and through

the use of leading questions so as to protect the identity and privacy of the patients

information.

Rule 1006 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that a party may use a

summary or chart to prove the content of voluminous writings. Fed.R.Evid. 1006. The

original or duplicates of such records must be made available for examination or

copying to the other party. Id.; see United States v. Isaacs, 593 F.3d 517, 527 (7thCir. 2010).

In addition, Rule 611 allows the court reasonable control over the mode of interrogating

a witness so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the

ascertainment of the truth; (2) avoid wasting time; and (3) protect witnesses from

3:12-cr-30035-RM-TSH # 48 Page 14 of 16


15/16

15

undue embarrassment. Fed.R.Evid. 611; see United States v. OBrien, 119 F.3d 523, 531 (7th

Cir. 1997).

In this case, to efficiently present evidence of the content of voluminous records

and to protect the confidentiality of patient medical, personal, and billing information,

the government requests that the Court allow the government to present testimony, in

part through leading questions, of witnesses summarizing voluminous records, all of

which have been provided to the defense, without admitting such records into

evidence.

Respectfully submitted,

JAMES A. LEWISUNITED STATES ATTORNEY

BY: s/Timothy A. BassTIMOTHY A. BASS, Bar No. MO 45344Assistant United States Attorney318 S. Sixth StreetSpringfield, Illinois 62701

Phone: 217/492-4450Fax: 217/[email protected]

3:12-cr-30035-RM-TSH # 48 Page 15 of 16
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


16/16

16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 6thday November 2013, I electronically filed theforegoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will sendnotification of such filing to the following to:

Counsel of record

s/Timothy A. BassTIMOTHY A. BASS, Bar No. MO 45344Assistant United States Attorney318 S. Sixth StreetSpringfield, Illinois 62701

Phone: 217/492-4450Fax: 217/[email protected]

3:12-cr-30035-RM-TSH # 48 Page 16 of 16
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

The case against the Klinefelters

Documents

Transcript of The case against the Klinefelters